13 ms·

The FCC responds to my ATSC 3 encryption complaint – they want to hear from you

403 points by tech234a 3y ago

ddingus 3y ago
OTA TV is a matter of public interest. The electromagnetic spectrum is OURS collectively. Public broadcast licenses are rooted in the idea of a well informed public is good for everyone. Encryption is just a move to monetize what is otherwise a public resource. I object to that and will be making a comment to that effect. Thanks for the heads up.
- phh 3y ago
  The electromagnetic spectrum is used by many private companies, like carriers. Would you want to disband that as well, and make it free for everyone to use? (I'm a huge proponent that all infrastructure should be public, but I still think that carrier usage should be paid by the users, at least beyond some minimal usage)
  - tenebrisalietum 3y ago
    Apples and oranges. Broadcasting is a "one-to-many" operation, where the target "many" is indeed the public. Concern about public interest is relevant. Carriers create a "one-to-one" service. Users of the service are not being addressed in a public manner except in an infrastructural way (broadcast addresses in a content-oriented as well as infrastructural method). Concern about public interest can only be limited to "can any member of the public obtain this service?"
    - eddieroger 3y ago
      Exactly. It's also a very finite resource, and while some of the spectrum is allocated for private use, it is the FCC's job to protect that which is for public interest as well. Broadcast television is the only kind of television some people can receive, and it is in our collective interest to keep that open and accessible.
- KingLancelot 3y ago
  [dead]
- ww520 3y ago
  Public spectrums are public goods. They're indirectly funded by our tax dollars. Putting DRM encryption on it is similar to a private company putting a gate on a national park and charging people to go into the park.
  - BizarroLand 3y ago
    To belabor the metaphor, it's like a private company putting a gate on a national park and charging people to go into the park, but also no maintenance is ever performed and there is no financial overhead to keep the park operational. It's like being charged to breathe.
  - macNchz 3y ago
    > Putting DRM encryption on it is similar to a private company putting a gate on a national park and charging people to go into the park. Sadly not all that far from reality given how Booz Allen Hamilton has profited off of running recreation.gov. https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/why-is-booz-allen-renting-us-back https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/why-is-booz-allen-renting...
    - nofunsir 3y ago
      Funny, I see you replied the same thing! It's absolutely absurd, ludicrous, and asinine that we have to go through a private defense contractor to access PUBLIC SPACES. It makes me livid.
      - stateofinquiry 3y ago
        This is bad, so is not getting critical information without relying on a private social media company! I felt as you do when I realized my county was using Twitter for emergency alerts during a crisis. I happen not to have an account, but was fortunate to get the information from another person nearby.
  - nofunsir 3y ago
    You mean like Booz Allen Hamilton (CIA's private IT department) running Recreation.gov, which you MUST USE even if you show up to a park that allows reservations on the spot (they tell YOU to break out YOUR phone and go to recreation.gov), and which you CANNOT USE IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR COMPUTER TO CONNECT TO GOOGLE'S SERVERS a la GOOGLE TRACKERS???
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >The electromagnetic spectrum is OURS But the content being played over it likely isn't.
  - BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
    It's not as though the encryption only kicks in when copyrighted shows/movies are on the screen; it covers the ad breaks, the breaking news/emergency alert interruptions, and everyone else on the channel too.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    The point is that we as a society collectively get to set the rules. For example, if you want to use OUR spectrum to play your content, that content must be accessible to anyone who has a standard-conforming implementation.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      And part of that standard can be that the implementation must secure protected content from being copied by people.
      - int_19h 3y ago
        If we give that permission, sure. I don't see why we should do so for OTA.
      - Osiris 3y ago
        DRM does not prevent copying. Everything that is broadcast or streamed is copiable. DRM has never worked.
        forty 3y ago
        Yeah I don't understand why it's not clear for everyone now that the only people benefiting from DRM are DRM makers. It never actually protected anything. The most outrageous example is HDCP, for which I believe one of the master key has been leaked and it's publically known (so the protection it might have offered is void), but customers still pay the HDCP tax to Intel on every device that must support it to work with other devices...
parl_match 3y ago
One argument that the pro-encryption camp is using is that it provides Integrity to TV. Encryption provides an important quality, such that it prevents someone from interfering with a broadcast and broadcasting their own, psuedo authoritative, pirate signal. This can also be achieved with signing. These arguments are spurious. Please comment to oppose encryption.
- phh 3y ago
  You can't reasonably sign broadcast. Encryption is done at 188B packets to be robust to packet loss. That being said that argument is still BS because the attacker can just send a non encrypted signal.
  - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
    Why couldn’t a 188B packet stream be signed? If it can be encrypted, it can be signed easier.
  - drmpeg 3y ago
    188 byte Transport Streams are allowed in ATSC 3.0. but it's a legacy mode. All ATSC 3.0 stations on the air use UDP over IP packets.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    My intuition is that if it can be encrypted, it can definitely be signed. Is that wrong?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- LocalH 3y ago
  When was the last signal intrusion? LMAO
alfalfasprout 3y ago
What's even the point of this? It's a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist. Who is even pirating OTA content anyway? And if you have the tuner if it doesn't have HDCP then can't the content be captured anyways? Even if it has HDCP, HDCP is broken already.
- parl_match 3y ago
  > Who is even pirating OTA content anyway? It's sports. Local games are often shown on broadcast TV while packages to view them in other regions are expensive. There's a huge network of sports streamers with ATSC tuners, most of whom who charge (a lot less than the package). It'll maybe shut down the sports streamers for a year or two, at the cost of social good. Doesn't seem worth it to me!
  - xur17 3y ago
    Don't the sports streamers just rebroadcast the mlb.tv (or equivalent) transmission? I highly doubt it will stop them at all. Like any other drm, this will get worked around quickly at the cost of a worse experience for those following the rules.
  - phkahler 3y ago
    >> > Who is even pirating OTA content anyway? >> It's sports. That's silly. Sports are way more valuable to the consumer when watched in real time. There is very very little value in saving a copy.
    - AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
      They aren't saving copies. They are doing real time streaming.
      - alfalfasprout 3y ago
        Right... so all they have to do is plug in one of these boxes into an HDCP stripper and they can keep on streaming.
jeffdubin 3y ago
The failure was letting encryption into the standard in the first place. This will be a never ending game, with big broadcasters continuously lobbying the FCC and congress for the ability to monetize the broadcast bands. If we allow broadcast television to become a subscription service, then just kill TV broadcasting and repurpose this spectrum for mobile (cellular) use. I'm not endorsing this idea, I'm only saying that by going down the path of encrypted transmissions, broadcasters are no different than any other ISP - except they'll own the pipe AND control the content. You want to stop this in its tracks? Convince Amazon to start buying some TV stations. Congress would be livid.
- LocalH 3y ago
  It's not about turning OTA into a subscription service. It's about taking control of which devices are allowed to view OTA channels. It's about taking control away from the end-user in terms of what they can do with the signal that they record with their equipment. Privately sending that video to wherever I am physically located? Not if they don't say you can. It's disgusting, and the FCC should be ashamed for not flatly rejecting encryption on OTA channels in all its forms.
- mcny 3y ago
  > then just kill TV broadcasting and repurpose this spectrum for mobile (cellular) use I would much rather prefer it become an unlicensed spectrum. I absolutely abhor the idea that spectrum goes to the highest bidder in our current regulatory environment that greatly favors incumbents.
  - coding123 3y ago
    That's not feasible unless there's some regulatory body requiring spectrum sharing (CDMA or GSM or something else?)
    - ooterness 3y ago
      By "unlicensed" they presumably mean a loose framework for short-range transmissions, like the rules used for ISM bands. The ISM bands at 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5.0 GHz used for WiFi, Bluetooth, etc. are the best-known examples.
mgulick 3y ago
For anyone using an HDHomeRun or any other OTA capture card, this effectively kills the ability to watch and record content using Plex/Jellyfin/Emby/etc. Only "certified" devices are allowed access to the encryption keys. Only closed, fully locked down black box recording systems will ever be "certified". Don't have a Windows machine with a fully verified HDCP chain? Sorry, you can no longer watch OTA TV.
- xur17 3y ago
  > Only "certified" devices are allowed access to the encryption keys. Only closed, fully locked down black box recording systems will ever be "certified". I really really hope this doesn't go through, but if it does, I can't wait for the day when these keys are inevitably leaked.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    These modern systems tend to have a seperate key for every consumer. Ie. every single device ever produced has a seperate key. If any device is cracked/leaked, they find out which one is cracked and send out new keys for every other device except the one that was cracked. Through clever use of key hierarchies, you only need to send out a small number of new keys over the air to make sure every legit user gets a new one, but your leaked key doesn't get replaced so anyone using that gets locked out. There is no master key to leak - if you leak one key, you only lock out one device. All other keys are ephemeral.
    - axus 3y ago
      Is that what they do with satellite TV? Not knowing anything, I'd think they'd need a unique connection for every user, like Internet streaming, to have unique keys.
      - kaetemi 3y ago
        Encrypt video broadcast with a master key pair. Then just continually broadcast the decryption key, encrypted for every customer individually, alongside. If there's a mysterious "activation" period after turning on the device initially, it's probably something like that. Rotate the master every so often to kick off users.
phh 3y ago
Anecdata: France has a few encrypted channels, and except that there is a monopoly on those channels [1] I think it's quite fair. They take like a sixth of the available bandwidth. That being said I understand the uproar is about channels switching from FTA to subscription, which isn't legal for channels here [1] all those channels belong to the same company, but realistically they are the only long-term subscription based channels in France
lasermike026 3y ago
We should do something like the UK does. We should have the American version of the BBC. I hate the networks totally and completely.
- reaperducer 3y ago
  We should do something like the UK does. We should have the American version of the BBC. I hate the networks totally and completely. Are you under the impression that the BBC is the only television in the UK and it doesn't have other networks?
- samdcbu 3y ago
  The American version of the BBC: PBS
  - sircastor 3y ago
    PBS is a private company that receives very little funding from the public, and is mostly funded by local stations which in turn are funded through donations. BBC is funded through an annual Television license fee, and supplemented through international distribution. While US Public Television (largely PBS affiliates) and BBC have similar goals, fill a similar role. They're very different. Though maybe what you meant was that this is as close to BBC as the US has...
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  UK enforces the same legally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Licence_fee_enforcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...
BSEdlMMldESB 3y ago
what public even means is getting redefined completely. but this must have something to do with the deep understanding rePUBLIC (continuous re-negotiation of this public/private boundary ? but i'm guessing having been unable to finish reading that old Plato book) why this is scary is because of deep connections between privacy and identity (sense of self even) but I'm already rambling
- supertrope 3y ago
  Public like oil drilling on public lands. Private companies exploit public resources such as finite spectrum, petroleum, or unpolluted water.
  - BSEdlMMldESB 3y ago
    and people, people are a resource up for exploitation by this point
tgorgolione 3y ago
Also note the related petition: https://blog.lon.tv/2023/06/30/lets-save-free-tv-and-stop-atsc-3-0-drm-sign-my-petition/ https://blog.lon.tv/2023/06/30/lets-save-free-tv-and-stop-at...
esaym 3y ago
Encrypting public TV transmission.... I didn't know that was a thing. Truly speechless.
jrockway 3y ago
My first thought was that broadcasts should never be encrypted; everyone has a license to decrypt the signal and that was a condition of giving them a chunk of the RF spectrum free from interference. I thought about it some more, and think you need encryption to authenticate the broadcaster to the viewer. For example, without encryption I can drive by the old folks home and broadcast my video of "the world is ending, kill yourself before it's too late" and do a lot of mental damage to people. With encryption, this attack is blocked; I don't have ABC news' key, so I can't pretend to be them. All in all, I'm not sure what the right public policy decision is here. I guess analog TV worked pretty well. Broadcast intrusions are fun to read about anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_signal_hijacking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_signal_hijacking
- Retric 3y ago
  You can sign a message without encrypting it, thus ensuring everyone realizes it’s from you while allowing everyone to see it.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  Authentication, proving validity, doesn't require encryption. Authentication uses cryptography, but the signal doesn't need to be encrypted since can add a signature to prove who came from and that hasn't been tampered with.
- mynameisvlad 3y ago
  > For example, without encryption I can drive by the old folks home and broadcast my video of "the world is ending, kill yourself before it's too late" and do a lot of mental damage to people. I mean, yes, you can take a homebrew transmitter and do that, just like you could have done for decades. But you're still operating an unlicensed transmitter and are performing broadcast signal intrusion. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-15 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A... already defines specific limits which prevent pirate broadcasting. Why is DRM necessary? And why is it only necessary now?
  - 3y ago
tech234a 3y ago
To clear up some confusion in this thread: According to the ATSC 3.0 Security Authority [1], the ATSC 3.0 standard already allows for signal signing without the Widevine DRM encryption. Signing is already required, but encryption is optional [2]. Encryption is not necessary for authentication. [1]: https://a3sa.com/ https://a3sa.com/ [2]: https://a3sa.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Security-Systems-for-NextGen-TV-Broadcasts-Executive-Summary-2022.03.24.pdf https://a3sa.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Security-Systems...
ryandrake 3y ago
Is there any example in history where the FCC was trying to push through one of their anti-consumer rules that would benefit the usual corporate donors, where the "public comment period" actually convinced them not to do it? I've always thought of a public comment period as a "suggestion box positioned on top of a shredder." They don't care what we think--aren't they just collecting comments because they have to?
- s3p 3y ago
  I would like to see this as well. I recall during the net neutrality wars [1] that well over 1 million comments left on the FCC website were fake. I wonder whether these comments are monitored at all. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/06/80-of-the-22-million-comments-on-net-neutrality-rollback-were-fake-investigation-finds/#:~:text=TC-,80%25%20of%20the%2022%20million%20comments%20on%20net,rollback%20were%20fake%2C%20investigation%20finds&text=Of%20the%2022%20million%20comments%20submitted%20to%20the%20FCC%20regarding,Attorney%20General's%20office%20has%20found https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/06/80-of-the-22-million-comme....
- babypuncher 3y ago
  In 2016 the FCC enforced Net Neutrality regulations on ISPs after a period of public input that showed overwhelming support for the rules. This was undone a year later. This time, there was another period of public input, but the public consensus was ignored in favor of giving Ajit Pai's corporate BFFs what they wanted. Right now the FCC is in a 2-2 partisan deadlock, but that will likely change shortly with the nomination of a 5th comissioner making it to the senate.
thebeardisred 3y ago
Direct link for comment: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express?proceeding[name]=16-142 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express?proceeding[name]=16...
martin1975 3y ago
Funnily enough, I just got my HAM radio General license - precisely because I can't stand s*t like this. Now I'm just waiting for someone to clamp down on HAM frequencies......
- Infernal 3y ago
  And of course we peasants aren’t allowed to encrypt our signals.
  - imroot 3y ago
    Get an itinerant license. $300 bucks or so, and then you can encrypt if you use the itinerant frequency, and you don't even need frequency coordination for it. It also comes with some of the other benefits of commercial space. One of the amateur radio clubs I've joined pooled up and basically offers it as a service to its members.
    - martin1975 3y ago
      ty, had no idea about this.
    - Infernal 3y ago
      Thanks for this, I’d never considered this approach.
technick 3y ago
Thank you for posting this here, I was unaware of this going on as it hasn't reached my state.
throwaway914 3y ago
I'm sorry this sounds non-constructive. I only have an internet plan at home, and I switched to PlutoTV on my Fire Sticks/Google TV sticks. I used to really love HDHomeRun because of how I could stream it around the house, and I did love seeing local broadcast channels. I think the only forward-looking option here is to stream via the internet. I submitted a response to the filing. I keep thinking of how public music radio stations have suffered a slow death and been taken over by countless religious groups.
nickysielicki 3y ago
This is going to kill archivists. There are so many fascinating YouTube videos of things like the 1989 sf earthquake during the World Series [1] or tornados [2] that just so happened to be on someone’s VHS or TiVo. That James Taylor music in the first clip would require encryption (as would the fact that it’s the World Series), and the second clip would be encrypted because there’s no sense in complicating things by ever turning it off. Huge loss if this happens. Looks like it probably will, though. [1]: https://youtu.be/Z8ExMR0c0aM https://youtu.be/Z8ExMR0c0aM [2]: https://youtu.be/FagzNHuI5JI https://youtu.be/FagzNHuI5JI
- LocalH 3y ago
  I'd be more ok with it, honestly, if public interest (news, local-origination programming, etc) content was illegal to encrypt, and it was only entertainment programming that they were allowed to encrypt. From what I'm understanding, though, the stations that have switched on encryption have done it wholesale, 24/7. To me, that is unacceptable. I hope this is quickly cracked and spread far and wide. Fuck these grifter station groups and networks.
mistercow 3y ago
> The broadcasters have said encryption is important for copy protection or other nonsense about protection from hackers and “deep fakes.” But the reality is they are trying to protect broadcast retransmission fees that now make up a significant portion of their revenue. > Lawyers for the broadcasters have effectively stopped every large scale retransmission effort making encryption unnecessary to protect their broadcast exclusivity rights. What this is really about is making it more difficult for everyday consumers to watch free over the air TV in an effort to push us back onto paid subscription services. This is a pretty muddled message, as written. It’s odd to say “the reality is…”, and then to say that that is a cover for something else. Based on what’s being said here, it seems like the entire retransmission tangent should be left out entirely.
unfocused 3y ago
I hope you succeed. Although I am in Canada, we tend to follow along with what happens in the US in terms of Standards. I'm still a user of OTA tv, and use HDHomeRun with TVHeadEnd on a NAS to record any shows I like. This definitely would affect me down the road. I still hold a grudge against Rogers (back when I had cable), when I recorded a bunch of sports from the Beijing Olympics in 2008 and liked watching them on the go. The Rogers PVR, I think it was the Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8300 HD PVR, had a firewire port, and my old macbook had a firewire port. With that, you could play your content from the PVR, and recorded it directly onto your computer as a .ts (transport stream) and then convert it to a smaller file. Then of course, without my permission, they pushed a firmware upgrade and wiped all my recordings before I could get them off. Jerks.
LinAGKar 3y ago
American digital TV is unencrypted? That's a surprise, here in Europe nearly all digital TV channels have been DRM:ed right from the start.
ninju 3y ago
Done! Proceeding(s):16-142 Confirmation #:202307140526319305 Submitted: Jul 14, 2023 11:20:36 AM Status: RECEIVED I am writing in opposition to DRM Encryption being part of the ATSC 3.0 standard. I am a household, like many others, that still use an over-the-air antenna to receive local channels. I depend on free TV signals for general news and entertainment and I am concerned about costs/accessibility if DRM encryption is included. My concern is that broadcasters will force/coerce encryption on their signals, since it is part of the ATSC 3.0 standard, which will result in an restriction on which antennas can be used. I will have to purchase a new antenna to view the channels that I can currently see with current antenna. Thank you for you attention
rgsoni 3y ago
It is unfair for TV broadcasters to use the public spectrum by shutting out the public through encryption. It must be stopped.

403 points by tech234a 3y ago

OTA TV is a matter of public interest. The electromagnetic spectrum is OURS collectively. Public broadcast licenses are rooted in the idea of a well informed public is good for everyone. Encryption is just a move to monetize what is otherwise a public resource. I object to that and will be making a comment to that effect. Thanks for the heads up.

phh 3y ago
The electromagnetic spectrum is used by many private companies, like carriers. Would you want to disband that as well, and make it free for everyone to use? (I'm a huge proponent that all infrastructure should be public, but I still think that carrier usage should be paid by the users, at least beyond some minimal usage)
- tenebrisalietum 3y ago
  Apples and oranges. Broadcasting is a "one-to-many" operation, where the target "many" is indeed the public. Concern about public interest is relevant. Carriers create a "one-to-one" service. Users of the service are not being addressed in a public manner except in an infrastructural way (broadcast addresses in a content-oriented as well as infrastructural method). Concern about public interest can only be limited to "can any member of the public obtain this service?"
  - eddieroger 3y ago
    Exactly. It's also a very finite resource, and while some of the spectrum is allocated for private use, it is the FCC's job to protect that which is for public interest as well. Broadcast television is the only kind of television some people can receive, and it is in our collective interest to keep that open and accessible.
KingLancelot 3y ago
[dead]
ww520 3y ago
Public spectrums are public goods. They're indirectly funded by our tax dollars. Putting DRM encryption on it is similar to a private company putting a gate on a national park and charging people to go into the park.
- BizarroLand 3y ago
  To belabor the metaphor, it's like a private company putting a gate on a national park and charging people to go into the park, but also no maintenance is ever performed and there is no financial overhead to keep the park operational. It's like being charged to breathe.
- macNchz 3y ago
  > Putting DRM encryption on it is similar to a private company putting a gate on a national park and charging people to go into the park. Sadly not all that far from reality given how Booz Allen Hamilton has profited off of running recreation.gov. https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/why-is-booz-allen-renting-us-back https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/why-is-booz-allen-renting...
  - nofunsir 3y ago
    Funny, I see you replied the same thing! It's absolutely absurd, ludicrous, and asinine that we have to go through a private defense contractor to access PUBLIC SPACES. It makes me livid.
    - stateofinquiry 3y ago
      This is bad, so is not getting critical information without relying on a private social media company! I felt as you do when I realized my county was using Twitter for emergency alerts during a crisis. I happen not to have an account, but was fortunate to get the information from another person nearby.
- nofunsir 3y ago
  You mean like Booz Allen Hamilton (CIA's private IT department) running Recreation.gov, which you MUST USE even if you show up to a park that allows reservations on the spot (they tell YOU to break out YOUR phone and go to recreation.gov), and which you CANNOT USE IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR COMPUTER TO CONNECT TO GOOGLE'S SERVERS a la GOOGLE TRACKERS???
charcircuit 3y ago
>The electromagnetic spectrum is OURS But the content being played over it likely isn't.
- BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
  It's not as though the encryption only kicks in when copyrighted shows/movies are on the screen; it covers the ad breaks, the breaking news/emergency alert interruptions, and everyone else on the channel too.
- int_19h 3y ago
  The point is that we as a society collectively get to set the rules. For example, if you want to use OUR spectrum to play your content, that content must be accessible to anyone who has a standard-conforming implementation.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    And part of that standard can be that the implementation must secure protected content from being copied by people.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      If we give that permission, sure. I don't see why we should do so for OTA.
    - Osiris 3y ago
      DRM does not prevent copying. Everything that is broadcast or streamed is copiable. DRM has never worked.
      - forty 3y ago
        Yeah I don't understand why it's not clear for everyone now that the only people benefiting from DRM are DRM makers. It never actually protected anything. The most outrageous example is HDCP, for which I believe one of the master key has been leaked and it's publically known (so the protection it might have offered is void), but customers still pay the HDCP tax to Intel on every device that must support it to work with other devices...

parl_match 3y ago

One argument that the pro-encryption camp is using is that it provides Integrity to TV. Encryption provides an important quality, such that it prevents someone from interfering with a broadcast and broadcasting their own, psuedo authoritative, pirate signal. This can also be achieved with signing. These arguments are spurious. Please comment to oppose encryption.

phh 3y ago
You can't reasonably sign broadcast. Encryption is done at 188B packets to be robust to packet loss. That being said that argument is still BS because the attacker can just send a non encrypted signal.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  Why couldn’t a 188B packet stream be signed? If it can be encrypted, it can be signed easier.
- drmpeg 3y ago
  188 byte Transport Streams are allowed in ATSC 3.0. but it's a legacy mode. All ATSC 3.0 stations on the air use UDP over IP packets.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  My intuition is that if it can be encrypted, it can definitely be signed. Is that wrong?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
LocalH 3y ago
When was the last signal intrusion? LMAO

alfalfasprout 3y ago

What's even the point of this? It's a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist. Who is even pirating OTA content anyway? And if you have the tuner if it doesn't have HDCP then can't the content be captured anyways? Even if it has HDCP, HDCP is broken already.

parl_match 3y ago
> Who is even pirating OTA content anyway? It's sports. Local games are often shown on broadcast TV while packages to view them in other regions are expensive. There's a huge network of sports streamers with ATSC tuners, most of whom who charge (a lot less than the package). It'll maybe shut down the sports streamers for a year or two, at the cost of social good. Doesn't seem worth it to me!
- xur17 3y ago
  Don't the sports streamers just rebroadcast the mlb.tv (or equivalent) transmission? I highly doubt it will stop them at all. Like any other drm, this will get worked around quickly at the cost of a worse experience for those following the rules.
- phkahler 3y ago
  >> > Who is even pirating OTA content anyway? >> It's sports. That's silly. Sports are way more valuable to the consumer when watched in real time. There is very very little value in saving a copy.
  - AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
    They aren't saving copies. They are doing real time streaming.
    - alfalfasprout 3y ago
      Right... so all they have to do is plug in one of these boxes into an HDCP stripper and they can keep on streaming.

jeffdubin 3y ago

The failure was letting encryption into the standard in the first place. This will be a never ending game, with big broadcasters continuously lobbying the FCC and congress for the ability to monetize the broadcast bands. If we allow broadcast television to become a subscription service, then just kill TV broadcasting and repurpose this spectrum for mobile (cellular) use. I'm not endorsing this idea, I'm only saying that by going down the path of encrypted transmissions, broadcasters are no different than any other ISP - except they'll own the pipe AND control the content. You want to stop this in its tracks? Convince Amazon to start buying some TV stations. Congress would be livid.

LocalH 3y ago
It's not about turning OTA into a subscription service. It's about taking control of which devices are allowed to view OTA channels. It's about taking control away from the end-user in terms of what they can do with the signal that they record with their equipment. Privately sending that video to wherever I am physically located? Not if they don't say you can. It's disgusting, and the FCC should be ashamed for not flatly rejecting encryption on OTA channels in all its forms.
mcny 3y ago
> then just kill TV broadcasting and repurpose this spectrum for mobile (cellular) use I would much rather prefer it become an unlicensed spectrum. I absolutely abhor the idea that spectrum goes to the highest bidder in our current regulatory environment that greatly favors incumbents.
- coding123 3y ago
  That's not feasible unless there's some regulatory body requiring spectrum sharing (CDMA or GSM or something else?)
  - ooterness 3y ago
    By "unlicensed" they presumably mean a loose framework for short-range transmissions, like the rules used for ISM bands. The ISM bands at 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5.0 GHz used for WiFi, Bluetooth, etc. are the best-known examples.

mgulick 3y ago

For anyone using an HDHomeRun or any other OTA capture card, this effectively kills the ability to watch and record content using Plex/Jellyfin/Emby/etc. Only "certified" devices are allowed access to the encryption keys. Only closed, fully locked down black box recording systems will ever be "certified". Don't have a Windows machine with a fully verified HDCP chain? Sorry, you can no longer watch OTA TV.

xur17 3y ago
> Only "certified" devices are allowed access to the encryption keys. Only closed, fully locked down black box recording systems will ever be "certified". I really really hope this doesn't go through, but if it does, I can't wait for the day when these keys are inevitably leaked.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  These modern systems tend to have a seperate key for every consumer. Ie. every single device ever produced has a seperate key. If any device is cracked/leaked, they find out which one is cracked and send out new keys for every other device except the one that was cracked. Through clever use of key hierarchies, you only need to send out a small number of new keys over the air to make sure every legit user gets a new one, but your leaked key doesn't get replaced so anyone using that gets locked out. There is no master key to leak - if you leak one key, you only lock out one device. All other keys are ephemeral.
  - axus 3y ago
    Is that what they do with satellite TV? Not knowing anything, I'd think they'd need a unique connection for every user, like Internet streaming, to have unique keys.
    - kaetemi 3y ago
      Encrypt video broadcast with a master key pair. Then just continually broadcast the decryption key, encrypted for every customer individually, alongside. If there's a mysterious "activation" period after turning on the device initially, it's probably something like that. Rotate the master every so often to kick off users.

phh 3y ago

Anecdata: France has a few encrypted channels, and except that there is a monopoly on those channels [1] I think it's quite fair. They take like a sixth of the available bandwidth. That being said I understand the uproar is about channels switching from FTA to subscription, which isn't legal for channels here [1] all those channels belong to the same company, but realistically they are the only long-term subscription based channels in France

lasermike026 3y ago

We should do something like the UK does. We should have the American version of the BBC. I hate the networks totally and completely.

reaperducer 3y ago
We should do something like the UK does. We should have the American version of the BBC. I hate the networks totally and completely. Are you under the impression that the BBC is the only television in the UK and it doesn't have other networks?
samdcbu 3y ago
The American version of the BBC: PBS
- sircastor 3y ago
  PBS is a private company that receives very little funding from the public, and is mostly funded by local stations which in turn are funded through donations. BBC is funded through an annual Television license fee, and supplemented through international distribution. While US Public Television (largely PBS affiliates) and BBC have similar goals, fill a similar role. They're very different. Though maybe what you meant was that this is as close to BBC as the US has...
YetAnotherNick 3y ago
UK enforces the same legally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Licence_fee_enforcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...

BSEdlMMldESB 3y ago

what public even means is getting redefined completely. but this must have something to do with the deep understanding rePUBLIC (continuous re-negotiation of this public/private boundary ? but i'm guessing having been unable to finish reading that old Plato book) why this is scary is because of deep connections between privacy and identity (sense of self even) but I'm already rambling

supertrope 3y ago
Public like oil drilling on public lands. Private companies exploit public resources such as finite spectrum, petroleum, or unpolluted water.
- BSEdlMMldESB 3y ago
  and people, people are a resource up for exploitation by this point

tgorgolione 3y ago

Also note the related petition: https://blog.lon.tv/2023/06/30/lets-save-free-tv-and-stop-atsc-3-0-drm-sign-my-petition/ https://blog.lon.tv/2023/06/30/lets-save-free-tv-and-stop-at...

esaym 3y ago

Encrypting public TV transmission.... I didn't know that was a thing. Truly speechless.

jrockway 3y ago

My first thought was that broadcasts should never be encrypted; everyone has a license to decrypt the signal and that was a condition of giving them a chunk of the RF spectrum free from interference. I thought about it some more, and think you need encryption to authenticate the broadcaster to the viewer. For example, without encryption I can drive by the old folks home and broadcast my video of "the world is ending, kill yourself before it's too late" and do a lot of mental damage to people. With encryption, this attack is blocked; I don't have ABC news' key, so I can't pretend to be them. All in all, I'm not sure what the right public policy decision is here. I guess analog TV worked pretty well. Broadcast intrusions are fun to read about anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_signal_hijacking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_signal_hijacking

Retric 3y ago
You can sign a message without encrypting it, thus ensuring everyone realizes it’s from you while allowing everyone to see it.
ianburrell 3y ago
Authentication, proving validity, doesn't require encryption. Authentication uses cryptography, but the signal doesn't need to be encrypted since can add a signature to prove who came from and that hasn't been tampered with.
mynameisvlad 3y ago
> For example, without encryption I can drive by the old folks home and broadcast my video of "the world is ending, kill yourself before it's too late" and do a lot of mental damage to people. I mean, yes, you can take a homebrew transmitter and do that, just like you could have done for decades. But you're still operating an unlicensed transmitter and are performing broadcast signal intrusion. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-15 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A... already defines specific limits which prevent pirate broadcasting. Why is DRM necessary? And why is it only necessary now?
- 3y ago

tech234a 3y ago

To clear up some confusion in this thread: According to the ATSC 3.0 Security Authority [1], the ATSC 3.0 standard already allows for signal signing without the Widevine DRM encryption. Signing is already required, but encryption is optional [2]. Encryption is not necessary for authentication. [1]: https://a3sa.com/ https://a3sa.com/ [2]: https://a3sa.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Security-Systems-for-NextGen-TV-Broadcasts-Executive-Summary-2022.03.24.pdf https://a3sa.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Security-Systems...

ryandrake 3y ago

Is there any example in history where the FCC was trying to push through one of their anti-consumer rules that would benefit the usual corporate donors, where the "public comment period" actually convinced them not to do it? I've always thought of a public comment period as a "suggestion box positioned on top of a shredder." They don't care what we think--aren't they just collecting comments because they have to?

s3p 3y ago
I would like to see this as well. I recall during the net neutrality wars [1] that well over 1 million comments left on the FCC website were fake. I wonder whether these comments are monitored at all. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/06/80-of-the-22-million-comments-on-net-neutrality-rollback-were-fake-investigation-finds/#:~:text=TC-,80%25%20of%20the%2022%20million%20comments%20on%20net,rollback%20were%20fake%2C%20investigation%20finds&text=Of%20the%2022%20million%20comments%20submitted%20to%20the%20FCC%20regarding,Attorney%20General's%20office%20has%20found https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/06/80-of-the-22-million-comme....
babypuncher 3y ago
In 2016 the FCC enforced Net Neutrality regulations on ISPs after a period of public input that showed overwhelming support for the rules. This was undone a year later. This time, there was another period of public input, but the public consensus was ignored in favor of giving Ajit Pai's corporate BFFs what they wanted. Right now the FCC is in a 2-2 partisan deadlock, but that will likely change shortly with the nomination of a 5th comissioner making it to the senate.

thebeardisred 3y ago

Direct link for comment: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express?proceeding[name]=16-142 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express?proceeding[name]=16...

martin1975 3y ago

Funnily enough, I just got my HAM radio General license - precisely because I can't stand s*t like this. Now I'm just waiting for someone to clamp down on HAM frequencies......

Infernal 3y ago
And of course we peasants aren’t allowed to encrypt our signals.
- imroot 3y ago
  Get an itinerant license. $300 bucks or so, and then you can encrypt if you use the itinerant frequency, and you don't even need frequency coordination for it. It also comes with some of the other benefits of commercial space. One of the amateur radio clubs I've joined pooled up and basically offers it as a service to its members.
  - martin1975 3y ago
    ty, had no idea about this.
  - Infernal 3y ago
    Thanks for this, I’d never considered this approach.

technick 3y ago

Thank you for posting this here, I was unaware of this going on as it hasn't reached my state.

throwaway914 3y ago

I'm sorry this sounds non-constructive. I only have an internet plan at home, and I switched to PlutoTV on my Fire Sticks/Google TV sticks. I used to really love HDHomeRun because of how I could stream it around the house, and I did love seeing local broadcast channels. I think the only forward-looking option here is to stream via the internet. I submitted a response to the filing. I keep thinking of how public music radio stations have suffered a slow death and been taken over by countless religious groups.

nickysielicki 3y ago

This is going to kill archivists. There are so many fascinating YouTube videos of things like the 1989 sf earthquake during the World Series [1] or tornados [2] that just so happened to be on someone’s VHS or TiVo. That James Taylor music in the first clip would require encryption (as would the fact that it’s the World Series), and the second clip would be encrypted because there’s no sense in complicating things by ever turning it off. Huge loss if this happens. Looks like it probably will, though. [1]: https://youtu.be/Z8ExMR0c0aM https://youtu.be/Z8ExMR0c0aM [2]: https://youtu.be/FagzNHuI5JI https://youtu.be/FagzNHuI5JI

LocalH 3y ago
I'd be more ok with it, honestly, if public interest (news, local-origination programming, etc) content was illegal to encrypt, and it was only entertainment programming that they were allowed to encrypt. From what I'm understanding, though, the stations that have switched on encryption have done it wholesale, 24/7. To me, that is unacceptable. I hope this is quickly cracked and spread far and wide. Fuck these grifter station groups and networks.

mistercow 3y ago

> The broadcasters have said encryption is important for copy protection or other nonsense about protection from hackers and “deep fakes.” But the reality is they are trying to protect broadcast retransmission fees that now make up a significant portion of their revenue. > Lawyers for the broadcasters have effectively stopped every large scale retransmission effort making encryption unnecessary to protect their broadcast exclusivity rights. What this is really about is making it more difficult for everyday consumers to watch free over the air TV in an effort to push us back onto paid subscription services. This is a pretty muddled message, as written. It’s odd to say “the reality is…”, and then to say that that is a cover for something else. Based on what’s being said here, it seems like the entire retransmission tangent should be left out entirely.

unfocused 3y ago

I hope you succeed. Although I am in Canada, we tend to follow along with what happens in the US in terms of Standards. I'm still a user of OTA tv, and use HDHomeRun with TVHeadEnd on a NAS to record any shows I like. This definitely would affect me down the road. I still hold a grudge against Rogers (back when I had cable), when I recorded a bunch of sports from the Beijing Olympics in 2008 and liked watching them on the go. The Rogers PVR, I think it was the Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8300 HD PVR, had a firewire port, and my old macbook had a firewire port. With that, you could play your content from the PVR, and recorded it directly onto your computer as a .ts (transport stream) and then convert it to a smaller file. Then of course, without my permission, they pushed a firmware upgrade and wiped all my recordings before I could get them off. Jerks.

LinAGKar 3y ago

American digital TV is unencrypted? That's a surprise, here in Europe nearly all digital TV channels have been DRM:ed right from the start.

ninju 3y ago

Done! Proceeding(s):16-142 Confirmation #:202307140526319305 Submitted: Jul 14, 2023 11:20:36 AM Status: RECEIVED I am writing in opposition to DRM Encryption being part of the ATSC 3.0 standard. I am a household, like many others, that still use an over-the-air antenna to receive local channels. I depend on free TV signals for general news and entertainment and I am concerned about costs/accessibility if DRM encryption is included. My concern is that broadcasters will force/coerce encryption on their signals, since it is part of the ATSC 3.0 standard, which will result in an restriction on which antennas can be used. I will have to purchase a new antenna to view the channels that I can currently see with current antenna. Thank you for you attention

rgsoni 3y ago

It is unfair for TV broadcasters to use the public spectrum by shutting out the public through encryption. It must be stopped.