Yesterday the Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee (DSTAC) gave their recommended software-based options for securing MVPD video content on retail devices. This was ahead of the September 4th deadline. The recommendations aren't public yet, so I'm not really sure if this qualifies as an 'announcement' but it seems like the best category.
http://www.fiercecable.com/story/fcc-do ... 2015-08-28
DSTAC provides recommendations to FCC ahead of schedule
-
mike_ekim
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:12 pm
- Location:
-
HTPC Specs:
-
mike_ekim
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:12 pm
- Location:
-
HTPC Specs:
The final report was presented in a meeting. Link to the video here:https://www.fcc.gov/events/downloadable ... g-08282015 The video was very high level and had little useful information.
Some highlights:
0:00 Patting each other on the back, roll call etc
6:30 Talk about their charter
7:30 (or so) Talk about what they considered, how teams were used, work groups etc
9:50 Stated that the report summarizes the results of work groups 1 through 4.
10:00 Begin presenting the report
11:00 no solution will require overhaul of networks, no common solution will be possible, no box will be expected to work with all networks, downloadable security must remain under control of MVPD
12:48 It's not reasonable to require any tuner will work with all security (i.e. cable and satellite), and it's not reasonable MVPD's will re-architect their networks to converge on common security.
16:40 Two technologies looked at by WG3: HTML5 with DRM, Headend system (security in the cloud with DTTCIP etc).
18:10 WG4: app based examples: HTML5, DLNA/VidiPath, RBU, Virtual Joey (Dish) deliver MPVD service
19:15: WG4: alternative to app based is Competitive Navigation, similar to cablecard deployments, MVPD creates interfaces accessed by consumer devices but consumer devices can create their own UIs to differentiate themselves (service discovery, entitlement discovery, content delivery interfaces) with metadata.
20:40 WG3's HTML security APIs proposal is designed to support WG4's application based proposal. WG3's virtual headend proposal can work with WG4's competitive navigation proposal.
21:10 Other combinations are possible i.e. the committee believes WG3's HTML5 security APIs proposal could support competitive navigation proposal. It may be possible for the WG3's virtual headend proposal to work with WG4's application based proposal, but there was insufficient time to look at the details of how the systems would relate to each other.
25:00 Question: when will the report be published? Answer: Not today.
I expect the final recommendation and WG3 and WG4 reports will be eventually published here: https://www.fcc.gov/dstac
Some highlights:
0:00 Patting each other on the back, roll call etc
6:30 Talk about their charter
7:30 (or so) Talk about what they considered, how teams were used, work groups etc
9:50 Stated that the report summarizes the results of work groups 1 through 4.
10:00 Begin presenting the report
11:00 no solution will require overhaul of networks, no common solution will be possible, no box will be expected to work with all networks, downloadable security must remain under control of MVPD
12:48 It's not reasonable to require any tuner will work with all security (i.e. cable and satellite), and it's not reasonable MVPD's will re-architect their networks to converge on common security.
16:40 Two technologies looked at by WG3: HTML5 with DRM, Headend system (security in the cloud with DTTCIP etc).
18:10 WG4: app based examples: HTML5, DLNA/VidiPath, RBU, Virtual Joey (Dish) deliver MPVD service
19:15: WG4: alternative to app based is Competitive Navigation, similar to cablecard deployments, MVPD creates interfaces accessed by consumer devices but consumer devices can create their own UIs to differentiate themselves (service discovery, entitlement discovery, content delivery interfaces) with metadata.
20:40 WG3's HTML security APIs proposal is designed to support WG4's application based proposal. WG3's virtual headend proposal can work with WG4's competitive navigation proposal.
21:10 Other combinations are possible i.e. the committee believes WG3's HTML5 security APIs proposal could support competitive navigation proposal. It may be possible for the WG3's virtual headend proposal to work with WG4's application based proposal, but there was insufficient time to look at the details of how the systems would relate to each other.
25:00 Question: when will the report be published? Answer: Not today.
I expect the final recommendation and WG3 and WG4 reports will be eventually published here: https://www.fcc.gov/dstac
-
mike_ekim
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:12 pm
- Location:
-
HTPC Specs:
Nope. Hardware manufacturers wanted AllVid. Cable companies never wanted AllVid. The DSTAC briefly talked about hardware based i.e. AllVid but that certainly wasn't the focus of the DSTAC's report. A few tin foil hat enthusiasts did a word search for AllVid so they would have something to complain about.STC wrote:MVPD + AllVid =
The DSTAC's report was focused on downloadable security, and one option that it discussed was app based security. App-based security = "cable" streaming over the internet from Comcast, Time Warner, Charter Spectrum, maybe others. From a legal perspective cable providers can simply stream. No cablecard slot in your Roku? No problem. The app will handle it.
Comcast here: http://forums.roku.com/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=87769
TWC Here: http://forums.roku.com/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=90598
Charter here: http://forums.roku.com/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=90294
This seems to clarify the big push to H.264 from many cable providers, they all made the move at about the same time, more than a decade after it was available. It wasn't just to free up bandwidth, or allow more channels. It was to allow tablet/Roku/Apple TV etc to be a cable box. They started transitioning right before it was possible for them to send DRM content to something other than a cablecard device (i.e. when they were helping craft the bill and lobbying legislatures).
For a long time many cable executives have said they are not interested in selling cable boxes or DVRs, it was a headache they went through to support cable subscribers. It looks like they actually meant it.
-
mike_ekim
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:12 pm
- Location:
-
HTPC Specs:
Followup: I don't follow a lot of politics, and cable TV (soon to be IPTV) isn't the most important aspect of our lives, but it's amazing how we are on the edge of a technological shift and most people aren't aware of the law change that made t possible. It was actually against the law for these cable companies to provide their content to a non-cablecard devices a year and a half ago.