Mailing List Archive: MythTV: Users

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH!

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

joe.borne at gmail

May 9, 2007, 9:23 AM

Post #1 of 20 (1913 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH!

On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 10:41 -0400, Joe Borne wrote:
> I have found a solution to the problem of 5C encrypted channels.

> This device here -> PYRO A /V

> Can convert Component Video (The Y Pb Pr) stuff straight to DV
> (firewire/ieee1394). It can also pass through the audio (in stereo at
> least).

Sorry. The specifications show that it only does standard definition,
so it's no better than a PVR-150.

You're right, I just noticed that too. Darn it. On the right track though.

jppoet at gmail

May 9, 2007, 10:06 AM

Post #2 of 20 (1896 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

On 5/9/07, Joe Borne <joe.borne [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 10:41 -0400, Joe Borne wrote:
>
> > I have found a solution to the problem of 5C encrypted channels.
>
> > This device here -> PYRO A /V
>
> > Can convert Component Video (The Y Pb Pr) stuff straight to DV
> > (firewire/ieee1394). It can also pass through the audio (in stereo at
> > least).
>
> Sorry. The specifications show that it only does standard definition,
> so it's no better than a PVR-150.
>
> You're right, I just noticed that too. Darn it. On the right track though.

It actually *might* be better than a PVR-150. It comes down to how
well it converts the analog video/audio to digital. Since it is an
external device, it would not have to fight off electrical
interference, like the PVR-150 does. No tuner, so it is only doing
one job. Component inputs should be much higher quality than s-video,
so it should have a cleaner source, which should result in a cleaner
result.

So, it is not going to be HD, but it still might be much better than
using a PVR-150 to capture s-video.

Does Myth know how to play video in "DV Video" format?

John
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

freedenizen at gmail

May 9, 2007, 11:23 AM

Post #3 of 20 (1868 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

On 5/9/07, John P Poet <jppoet [at] gmail> wrote:
> Does Myth know how to play video in "DV Video" format?

AFAIK DV is very large, it is what is used on digital camcorders.
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

mtdean at thirdcontact

May 9, 2007, 12:04 PM

Post #4 of 20 (1867 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

On 05/09/2007 02:23 PM, Asher wrote:
> On 5/9/07, John P Poet <jppoet [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> Does Myth know how to play video in "DV Video" format?
>>
> AFAIK DV is very large, it is what is used on digital camcorders.

IIRC, about 11GB/hr for NTSC at 720x480, but that's what transcoding is
for. :)

Mike
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

mtdean at thirdcontact

May 9, 2007, 12:14 PM

Post #5 of 20 (1862 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

On 05/09/2007 01:06 PM, John P Poet wrote:
> On 5/9/07, Joe Borne <joe.borne [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 10:41 -0400, Joe Borne wrote:
>>> I have found a solution to the problem of 5C encrypted channels.
>>>
>>> This device here -> PYRO A /V
>>>
>>> Can convert Component Video (The Y Pb Pr) stuff straight to DV
>>> (firewire/ieee1394). It can also pass through the audio (in stereo at
>>> least).
>> Sorry. The specifications show that it only does standard definition,
>> so it's no better than a PVR-150.
>>
>> You're right, I just noticed that too. Darn it. On the right track though.
>>
>
> It actually *might* be better than a PVR-150. It comes down to how
> well it converts the analog video/audio to digital. Since it is an
> external device, it would not have to fight off electrical
> interference, like the PVR-150 does. No tuner, so it is only doing
> one job. Component inputs should be much higher quality than s-video,
> so it should have a cleaner source, which should result in a cleaner
> result.
>
> So, it is not going to be HD, but it still might be much better than
> using a PVR-150 to capture s-video.
>

Not to mention that the video never gets corrupted--I mean quality isn't
degraded--by the NTSC format. NTSC is most of the reason that standard
def quality is so lacking--after all it's more than 50-year old
technology. If the video never becomes NTSC, it could theoretically be
as good as DVD quality (as played through a non-NTSC connection--i.e.
component or VGA or DVI or HDMI). And, anyone with an HDTV who has
played a (good quality) DVD through a non-NTSC connection knows how that
compares to NTSC. IMHO, NTSC = ., DVD = O, and HDTV = 0 (the difference
between NTSC and DVD quality is huge compared to the difference between
DVD and HDTV quality).

And, depending on the device, it may allow for proper aspect-ratio
switching. If so, it may allow capture of widescreen content at 720x480
with no black bars--meaning all 480 horizontal lines contain picture
content, so none of the resolution is wasted.

> Does Myth know how to play video in "DV Video" format?

It could always be transcoded.

Mike

_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

joe.borne at gmail

May 10, 2007, 6:12 AM

Post #6 of 20 (1840 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

Edited for some brevity here -

On 05/09/2007 04:10 PM, Joe Borne wrote:
> ...
>
> 2. A "connector" to allow MythTV to accept a raw DV stream.
>
> Does anyone on the list who is a developer know of a package or think
> they can create one that can fill role #2?

>> "Michael T. Dean" wrote:
>> Myth would need a new DvRecorder and all its associated support
>> (including either on-the-fly transcoding support--which would limit the
>> number and/or resolution of captures--or DV playback support with
>> optional post-recording transcoding).

>> Based on the value I place on my time and on the content of encrypted
>> channels, I feel waiting for a device that outputs a more-approriate
>> format (i.e. not so huge) would be more worthwhile. Then again, I'm
>> living without any encrypted channels--just OTA--now because they're not
>> worth the cost of having a cable/satellite subscription to me.

I see your point. But the need is already a lot more than a blip on the
radar and it's only going to grow. In all honesty I fear that third party
PVR's, even Tivos are under a very real threat to be eliminated by
provider/cable company cooperatives. IMHO as consumers we should be outraged
by this. In most parts of the USA and the world we get no choice about our
cable provider, they are monopolies. So we get to watch only what they
choose to provide at the costs they want to charge. Now we're going to let
them tell us when we can watch it, and how, and with what equipment? The
last time i checked I still lived in America - so I say no. (Please no
replies ranting about the politics aspect here - there are other listservs
for that)

A good case in point is the fact that my "Big 3" channels (ABC/NBC/CBS) are
the ones 5C encrypted on my cable. WTF? If I could get an antenna to work
where I live (I can only get about 50% signal here, not good enough to get
usable HDTV OTA) I could get those channels IN AN UNENCRYPTED FORMAT FOR
FREE. What could the reasoning behind encryption possibly be? Surely not to
protect content?

The whole fight over DRM on music just ended this last month. The fact that
iTunes is now going to offer DRM-free versions of almost all of its music
signals that the end of DRM is on the way. M$ followed suit within days for
it's Zune service. Over the next year or so competition will drive prices
down yet again, and fewer and fewer consumers will buy the DRM'd version
until the providers see no point in carrying it any more. Sure, the DMCA
will still exist, but it will molder in a folder somewhere because the
content providers themselves will see no point in enforcing it. Within a few
years the MPAA will be forced into the same position the RIAA now finds
itself in.

All of this happened because people said "I'm not paying $22 for a CD with
one good song and 14 songs that are crap anymore". They then went out and
continued to download non-DRM versions of music however they could. Then
Apple had the brains and guts to force a deal with the labels that allowed
them to sell songs individually at a price people were willing to pay. A
dollar a song isn't a bad deal and it's getting cheaper all the time.

If my cable provider offered me completely unencrypted content for an extra
$10 a month I'd pay it. Perhaps if another cable company were able to move
in and compete (Verizon FOIS anyone?), we might see things like this happen.
Until then, we have to fight this the same way consumers fought the RIAA.
Just tell them no. Show them you can get the content anyway and prove their
whole idea false. The iTunes deal happened because users went outside iTunes
and other similar services to get non-DRM'd versions of their music.

Apple, M$ and the cable companies/equipment manufacturers should be working
towards this. After all, the incorporation of DRM technology represents a
serious investment for them will little or zero return. They are wasting
their research and development dollars on something that provides zero value
for their consumers, and in many cases royally ticks the customer off.

I'm not advocating anyone go out and break the law. I pay for my premium
cable service, and it comes with a PVR. So I have the right to view this
content, and to do so in a time-shifted format. But I believe I also have
the right to do it with my own equipment.

So I'm going to continue my search for a piece of affordable equipment that
can make this translation. We are very, very close here. As the HD market
expands, the device will appear, I promise you.

So I repeat my offer. Anyone who is willing and able to contribute should
contact me. I am willing to donate my time and effort to coordinate the
task. Heck, I can even set up manufacturing, sales and distribution for the
finished product.

freedenizen at gmail

May 10, 2007, 7:27 AM

Post #7 of 20 (1828 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

On 5/10/07, Joe Borne <joe.borne [at] gmail> wrote:
> A good case in point is the fact that my "Big 3" channels (ABC/NBC/CBS) are
> the ones 5C encrypted on my cable.
<snip>

This is illegal under 47 C.F.R. 76.640(b)(4)(iii), which requires high
definition set-top boxes to comply with "ANSI/SCTE 26 2001 Home
Digital Network Interface Specification with Copy Protection"

I've been working with James Snider of the 1394 trade association and
Derek Slater from EFF on this. FOX and CBS have 5C turned on for
comcast here, I filed an informal complaint with the FCC. Comcast in
their response stated that I am trying to expand the FCC mandate
(which is false see above), and that they do not control 5C on their
network.

From Comcast response to FCC IC #: 07-W12729398:
San Francisco Bay Area Comcast does not select the DTCP level and does
not do 5C encryption.
<snip section where they talk about how my firewire device i.e.
mythbox may not conform to the ieee1394 standard>
Again, 5C is a standard selected by programmers, content owners, and
implemented by transport and consumer equipment. Our cable operation
is just part of the transport medium and is not encrypting or making
encrypting decisions.

They are are trying to place the blame for 5C with the networks,
1394TA and EFF are investigating that claim.
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

mtdean at thirdcontact

May 10, 2007, 9:21 AM

Post #8 of 20 (1827 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

On 05/10/2007 10:27 AM, Asher wrote:
> On 5/10/07, Joe Borne <joe.borne [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> A good case in point is the fact that my "Big 3" channels (ABC/NBC/CBS) are
>> the ones 5C encrypted on my cable.
>>
> <snip>
>
> This is illegal under 47 C.F.R. 76.640(b)(4)(iii), which requires high
> definition set-top boxes to comply with "ANSI/SCTE 26 2001 Home
> Digital Network Interface Specification with Copy Protection"

Wouldn't it only be illegal if the analog standard-definition versions
of these were also encrypted? I'm pretty sure they're legally allowed
to encrypt all digital signals, and though many--including the EFF--are
trying to get the FCC to expand the rules preventing encryption of
analog rebroadcast of analog OTA to include digital rebroadcast of
digital OTA signals, the FCC has not yet done so.

As far as the STB goes, it must have the interface, but the reg doesn't
say it must pass only unencrypted data through it. I see this as two
unrelated requirements, but then again, I'm not a lawyer.

Mike
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

freedenizen at gmail

May 10, 2007, 9:37 AM

Post #9 of 20 (1833 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

On 5/10/07, Michael T. Dean <mtdean [at] thirdcontact> wrote:
> Wouldn't it only be illegal if the analog standard-definition versions
> of these were also encrypted? I'm pretty sure they're legally allowed
> to encrypt all digital signals, and though many--including the EFF--are
> trying to get the FCC to expand the rules preventing encryption of
> analog rebroadcast of analog OTA to include digital rebroadcast of
> digital OTA signals, the FCC has not yet done so.
>
> As far as the STB goes, it must have the interface, but the reg doesn't
> say it must pass only unencrypted data through it. I see this as two
> unrelated requirements, but then again, I'm not a lawyer.
>
> Mike

IANAL but from what I understand you are correct, but I think there is
an existing requirement that analog broadcast of free ota channels in
the area be unencrypted.

There are 2 requirements, the first is that all STBs have a working
firewire port that passes unencrypted data through it and meets
various requirements of the ANSI/SCTE standard.
The second is that they must send free OTA channels without
encryption. Maybe I'm wrong on that point but from what I have read
that is true, and that is the opinion of the 1394TA as well.
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

mtdean at thirdcontact

May 10, 2007, 9:47 AM

Post #10 of 20 (1828 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

On 05/10/2007 12:37 PM, Asher wrote:
> On 5/10/07, Michael T. Dean <mtdean [at] thirdcontact> wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't it only be illegal if the analog standard-definition versions
>> of these were also encrypted? I'm pretty sure they're legally allowed
>> to encrypt all digital signals, and though many--including the EFF--are
>> trying to get the FCC to expand the rules preventing encryption of
>> analog rebroadcast of analog OTA to include digital rebroadcast of
>> digital OTA signals, the FCC has not yet done so.
>>
>> As far as the STB goes, it must have the interface, but the reg doesn't
>> say it must pass only unencrypted data through it. I see this as two
>> unrelated requirements, but then again, I'm not a lawyer.
>>
> IANAL but from what I understand you are correct, but I think there is
> an existing requirement that analog broadcast of free ota channels in
> the area be unencrypted.
>

Yep.

> There are 2 requirements, the first is that all STBs have a working
> firewire port that passes unencrypted data through it and meets
> various requirements of the ANSI/SCTE standard.
>

Always has to be unencrypted?

> The second is that they must send free OTA channels without
> encryption.

It definitely makes sense that they should have to. After all, what
good is requiring the firewire interface if the cable company can make
it useless by encrypting everything. However, I would love to see the
specific part of the reg that says it's a requirement. I would have
guessed (without doing the research it would take to know for sure) that
if the analog OTA signal were made available over this interface
(obviously digitally encoded), all other signals could be encrypted.

> Maybe I'm wrong on that point but from what I have read
> that is true, and that is the opinion of the 1394TA as well.

Regardless of what the law says, it's a good thing for you to try to
convince your cable company to do the right thing. So, keep up the
fight and I hope (for everyone in your area) you win it.

Mike
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

masterclc at gmail

May 10, 2007, 12:54 PM

Post #11 of 20 (1826 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

On 5/9/07, Michael T. Dean <mtdean [at] thirdcontact> wrote:
> On 05/09/2007 02:23 PM, Asher wrote:
> > On 5/9/07, John P Poet <jppoet [at] gmail> wrote:
> >
> >> Does Myth know how to play video in "DV Video" format?
> >>
> > AFAIK DV is very large, it is what is used on digital camcorders.
>
> IIRC, about 11GB/hr for NTSC at 720x480, but that's what transcoding is
> for. :)
>
> Mike
> _______________________________________________

Capturing from my camcorder yields much more than that. The DV files
that dvgrab produces from the firewire port (that my camcorder is
attached to) are about 2GB/min. From a ~10 minute capture the file is
~25GB.

-Chad
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

cbrabandt at yahoo

May 10, 2007, 1:03 PM

Post #12 of 20 (1846 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

> On 5/10/07, Michael T. Dean
<mtdean [at] thirdcontact> wrote:
> > Wouldn't it only be illegal if the analog
standard-definition
versions
> > of these were also encrypted? I'm pretty sure
they're legally
allowed
> > to encrypt all digital signals, and though
many--including the
EFF--are
> > trying to get the FCC to expand the rules
preventing encryption of
> > analog rebroadcast of analog OTA to include
digital rebroadcast of
> > digital OTA signals, the FCC has not yet done so.
> >
> > As far as the STB goes, it must have the
interface, but the reg
doesn't
> > say it must pass only unencrypted data through it.
I see this as two
> > unrelated requirements, but then again, I'm not a
lawyer.
> >
> > Mike

> IANAL but from what I understand you are correct,
but I think there is
> an existing requirement that analog broadcast of
free ota channels in
> the area be unencrypted.

> There are 2 requirements, the first is that all STBs
have a working
> firewire port that passes unencrypted data through
it and meets
> various requirements of the ANSI/SCTE standard.
> The second is that they must send free OTA channels
without
> encryption. Maybe I'm wrong on that point but from
what I have read
> that is true, and that is the opinion of the 1394TA
as well.

Yes, this is correct. There are two applicable parts
in the regs. § 76.630 may not help--depending on
what the cable provider provides under "basic service"
and what you are trying to record.

§76.1904(a), below, definitely means HD locals may
not be encrypted.

There's been much discussion on this subjet at
www.avsforums.com over the years. In general, the
cable-co's are clueless. Sometimes in our favor and
sometimes against us. Regarldess, short of a class
action lawsuit, it's tough to get them to do anything!
Comcast has been encrypting PBS and NBC HD for the
last year or so here in Portlan, OR. Despite my
repeated calls to customer service, I just get a
constant run-around.

Comcursed: "We provide the same content we get from
KGW and KOPB--they must be encrypting it."

Me: "The QAM-256 is in the clear on the cable. The
service screen on my DCT-6200 says those channels are
5c/"copy once" and that's encryption! The STB (you)
are adding the encryption! Arrghhh!"

Comcursed: "You'll have to make a written inquiry that
can be reviewed by our legal department."

Me: "You're in violation of FCC regs--plain and
simple. I'd rather just return my STB and remote
control and cancel everything but basic service."
(Tucks Fusion QAM / ATSC PCI card deeply into back
pocket ;))

Good luck with your provider. If anyone knows of a
class action against Comcursed, I'm in!

-Cal

From:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?type=simple;c=ecfr;cc=ecfr;sid=73e4c54edd07684fe19cccf7a1107f9b;idno=47;region=DIV1;q1=basic%20cable;rgn=div6;view=text;node=47%3A4.0.1.1.4.23

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR)

e-CFR Data is current as of May 8, 2007

Title 47: Telecommunication
PART 76—MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION
SERVICE

§ 76.630 Compatibility with consumer electronics
equipment.

(a) Cable system operators shall not scramble or
otherwise encrypt signals carried on the basic service
tier. Requests for waivers of this prohibition must
demonstrate either a substantial problem with theft of
basic tier service or a strong need to scramble basic
signals for other reasons. As part of this showing,
cable operators are required to notify subscribers by
mail of waiver requests. The notice to subscribers
must be mailed no later than thirty calendar days from
the date the request waiver was filed with the
Commission, and cable operators must inform the
Commission in writing, as soon as possible, of that
notification date.....

§ 76.1904 Encoding rules for defined business
models.

(a) Commercial audiovisual content delivered as
unencrypted broadcast television shall not be encoded
so as to prevent or limit copying thereof by covered
products or, to constrain the resolution of the image
when output from a covered product.

§ 76.1902(s) Definitions. Unencrypted broadcast
television means the retransmission by a covered
entity of any service, program, or schedule or group
of programs originally broadcast in the clear without
use of a commercially-adopted access control method by
a terrestrial television broadcast station regardless
of whether such covered entity employs an access
control method as a part of its retransmission.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

mtdean at thirdcontact

May 10, 2007, 1:26 PM

Post #13 of 20 (1823 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

On 05/10/2007 03:54 PM, Chad wrote:
> On 5/9/07, Michael T. Dean <mtdean [at] thirdcontact> wrote:
>
>> On 05/09/2007 02:23 PM, Asher wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIK DV is very large, it is what is used on digital camcorders.
>>>
>> IIRC, about 11GB/hr for NTSC at 720x480, but that's what transcoding is
>> for. :)
> Capturing from my camcorder yields much more than that. The DV files
> that dvgrab produces from the firewire port (that my camcorder is
> attached to) are about 2GB/min. From a ~10 minute capture the file is
> ~25GB.

True DV video uses a fixed bitrate of 25.146Mb/sec and audio uses
1.536Mb/sec. This works out to a minimum of 11.2GiB/hr. When you add
in subcode data, error detection, and error correction (about
8.7Mb/sec), you can go as high as 35.4Mb/sec (14.8GiB/hr). But, the
~11GB/hr is the smallest you'll go for a video and audio stream in DV
format.

DV50 doubles the bitrate of the video, and there are HD formats and
other variants, too. (HDV, ProHD and a bunch more about which I know
absolutely nothing.)

So, your camera probably uses a different format (variant of DV) that it
generically calls "DV". If the device the OP mentioned does, too, then
the video will take more room than the ~11GB/hr I quoted. But, since,
IMHO, 11GB/hr is /way/ too large for 720x480 video, that only supports
Asher's and my assertion that DV video would be huge.

This page has a pretty good comparison of sizes of various formats.
http://www.digitalservicestation.com/tips_tricks.html

Mike
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

jerrymr at gmail

May 10, 2007, 1:41 PM

Post #14 of 20 (1829 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

On 5/10/07, Michael T. Dean <mtdean [at] thirdcontact> wrote:
>
> DV50 doubles the bitrate of the video, and there are HD formats and
> other variants, too. (HDV, ProHD and a bunch more about which I know
> absolutely nothing.)

I believe HDV uses mpeg-2.

-Jerry

mtdean at thirdcontact

May 10, 2007, 1:53 PM

Post #15 of 20 (1822 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

On 05/10/2007 04:41 PM, Jerry Rubinow wrote:
> On 5/10/07, Michael T. Dean <mtdean [at] thirdcontact> wrote:
>> DV50 doubles the bitrate of the video, and there are HD formats and
>> other variants, too. (HDV, ProHD and a bunch more about which I know
>> absolutely nothing.)
> I believe HDV uses mpeg-2.

Like I said, "[formats] about which I know absolutely nothing." :)
Guess that's not really a variant of DV, then.

Mike
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

mtdean at thirdcontact

May 10, 2007, 1:55 PM

Post #16 of 20 (1823 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

On 05/10/2007 04:03 PM, Calin Brabandt wrote:
> Yes, this is correct. There are two applicable parts
> in the regs. § 76.630 may not help--depending on
> what the cable provider provides under "basic service"
> and what you are trying to record.
>
> §76.1904(a), below, definitely means HD locals may
> not be encrypted.
>
...
> From:
> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?type=simple;c=ecfr;cc=ecfr;sid=73e4c54edd07684fe19cccf7a1107f9b;idno=47;region=DIV1;q1=basic%20cable;rgn=div6;view=text;node=47%3A4.0.1.1.4.23
>
...
> § 76.1904 Encoding rules for defined business
> models.
>
> (a) Commercial audiovisual content delivered as
> unencrypted broadcast television shall not be encoded
> so as to prevent or limit copying thereof by covered
> products or, to constrain the resolution of the image
> when output from a covered product.
>
> § 76.1902(s) Definitions. Unencrypted broadcast
> television means the retransmission by a covered
> entity of any service, program, or schedule or group
> of programs originally broadcast in the clear without
> use of a commercially-adopted access control method by
> a terrestrial television broadcast station regardless
> of whether such covered entity employs an access
> control method as a part of its retransmission.

Is that really part of the current law right now? If you read a bit
farther down the page to which you linked, you'll see:

-----
� 76.1909 Redistribution control of unencrypted digital terrestrial
broadcast content.
(b) /Encrypted retransmission. /Where a multichannel video programming
distributor retransmits unencrypted digital terrestrial broadcast
content in encrypted form, such distributor shall, upon demodulation of
the 8�VSB, 16�VSB, 64�QAM or 256�QAM signal, inspect either the EIT or
PMT for the broadcast flag, and if the broadcast flag is present:
(1) Securely and robustly convey that information to the consumer
product used to decrypt the distributor's signal information, and
(2) Require that such consumer product, following such decryption,
protect the content of such signal as if it were a covered demodulator
product receiving marked content.
(c) /Unencrypted retransmission. /Where a multichannel video programming
distributor retransmits unencrypted digital terrestrial broadcast
content in unencrypted form, such distributor shall, upon demodulation:
(1) Preserve the broadcast flag, if present, in both the EIT and PMT; and
(2) Use 8�VSB, 16�VSB, 64�QAM, or 256�QAM signal modulation for the
retransmission.
(d) /Unmarked content. /Where a multichannel video programming
distributor retransmits unencrypted digital terrestrial broadcast
content that is not marked with the broadcast flag, the multichannel
video programming distributor shall not encode such content to restrict
its redistribution.
-----

Which allows them to encrypt it if the broadcast flag has been set on
the content transmitted by the broadcaster??? TTBOMK, the broadcast flag
regulations have not yet been adopted into our current laws. Did it make
it "partially" in (i.e. provisions for broadcast flag, but no
requirement for hardware support for the flag?) or is the source you've
quoted showing a proposed regulation?

Mike

_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

freedenizen at gmail

May 10, 2007, 2:05 PM

Post #17 of 20 (1822 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

On 5/10/07, Michael T. Dean <mtdean [at] thirdcontact> wrote:
> TTBOMK, the broadcast flag
> regulations have not yet been adopted into our current laws. Did it make
> it "partially" in (i.e. provisions for broadcast flag, but no
> requirement for hardware support for the flag?) or is the source you've
> quoted showing a proposed regulation?
>
> Mike

The broadcast flag is active, that is 5C. What the courts struck down
was the requirement that all hardware being sold honor the flag.
Atleast that is what I understand. This whole thread is kinda off the
original topic. I will talk with Derek and James again, they are both
very interested in getting in contact with as many people as possible
who are having issues with this. I don't want to post any email
addresses to the list without talking to them first.
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

freedenizen at gmail

May 10, 2007, 3:18 PM

Post #18 of 20 (1830 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

Derek directed me to have people email hdtvdrm [at] eff with complaints
about broadcast flag (5C) issues on cable. James Snider's email was
posted to the list previously and is jsnider [at] 1394ta
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

brad+myth at templetons

May 11, 2007, 1:51 AM

Post #19 of 20 (1819 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

Well, a friend of mine is designing a new transcoding chip for HDTV. It's
aimed at transcoding more than raw-encoding, because transcoding can make
use of quantization and motion estimations from the incoming encoding to
save time in doing the outgoing one, but because it is designed to do really
fast transcoding it can also, she tells me, encode raw HDTV for you.

And it should cost about $10, which means a $150 card is not out of the
question. Getting A2D for component out is another story, though you can
still find STB that put out DVI sometimes I thought.

So all it takes is some brave soul to come to the company that is paying
her to make the chip and order a ton for cards to go in mythtv boxes
and you will be able to record your HD from an STB that puts out DVI
or probably component video.
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

danielk at cuymedia

May 17, 2007, 7:50 AM

Post #20 of 20 (1730 views)
Permalink

Re: I may have SOLVED the 5C cable encryption - DOH! [In reply to]

On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 12:47 -0400, Michael T. Dean wrote:
> > The second is that they must send free OTA channels without
> > encryption.
>
> It definitely makes sense that they should have to. After all, what
> good is requiring the firewire interface if the cable company can make
> it useless by encrypting everything. However, I would love to see the
> specific part of the reg that says it's a requirement. I would have
> guessed (without doing the research it would take to know for sure) that
> if the analog OTA signal were made available over this interface
> (obviously digitally encoded), all other signals could be encrypted.

I found the relevant sections of the FCC regulations last year
when my RCN was having trouble providing me with a functioning
box. It says nothing about an exemption for HDTV broadcasts
allowing them to be 5C or otherwise encumbered. After reading
the regulation you will be amazed that Comcast is making this
argument at all. Their argument basically boils down to
OTA is analog because the regulation was passed when OTA digital
was still being tested and the FCC can't possibly expect their
regulations on television to include digital television without
explicitly stating so. But of course the FCC has amended their
definition of television to include digital television so this
is pure poppycock. (RCN's excuse was that they were incompetent
to configure their hardware themselves and had begged and
pleaded with Motorola to get the boxes to work.)

I don't think Comcast actually thinks their argument holds any
water, they are just trying to delay the arthritic arm of the
law until they can get the law changed on the cheap. They know
that the worst the current FCC will do is plead with them
nicely, "please don't break the law so visibly in the future or
we might have to ask you again nicely the next time we get bad
PR; yes, make the first check out to Rudy Guilliani and the
second out to Hillary Clinton, the cash is for me."

-- Daniel

_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads