Devadas Menon writes: > we are about to start a custom ATSC/HDTV receiver development work. It uses > Phlips tuner and NxtWave's VSB demodulator. Our customer will be putting > out the product in the 3rd quarter this year. > > I think that this whole thing is an exercise in futility. ATSC signals are > one of the easiest to hack into, since the standards are well known and can > be downloaded from atsc.org. Tuners are available from a number of sources. > The VSB demodulator may not have many suppliers. I do not think that there > is something called "ATSC Tuners". The Philips tuner can output the IF and > CVBS signals from both ATSC and NTSC broadcasts. If one need to decode > NTSC, then the IF/CVBS is fed to a broadcast decoder otherwise to the VSB > demodulator, which outputs TS. I'm glad to hear about your project; I urge you to take the BPDG plan very seriously, because I think it will literally outlaw (for consumer/public sale in the U.S.) what you are trying to do. The "affected industries" have been meeting in L.A. for some months and prepared an elaborate technical specification. The version from this morning is now at http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/HDTV/20020326_bpdg_compliance_rules.doc Sorry for the Word file -- that's how these folks operate! It's correct that tuning (and RF --> IF downconversion), demodulation, decoding, and other digital processing are all logically separate functions, which can be implemented in separate components. I don't usually distinguish these components when talking about these rules, partly because they're written very broadly to apply to anything which _contains_ certain functionality. Their efforts might mean that some of the components you're using could become unavailable. For example, I don't think something like the Philips TDA 8961 http://my.semiconductors.com/pip/TDA8961_1 could be sold to the public under this plan, and components like that could just drop off the market entirely, or be sold only to companies which agree in writing to put DRM into any product using the chip. It's true that the proposal is "futile" in the sense that ATSC is an open and published standard, that it's been independently implemented and lots of components and complete systems have been available, and that all of those will continue to work flawlessly. However, the power of legal mandates to affect what's _generally available_ both to consumers and to OEMs shouldn't be underestimated. This is totally separate from the question of what's technically feasible. I can give you two prior precedents which have quite a lot in common with what may come out of BPDG: (1) The "cell phone scanner ban" (also a restriction on the manufacture and sale of devices which could receive unencrypted over-the-air radio signals -- many of which also use published modulation standards). http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/investigation.html The Act also contains provisions that affect the manufacture of equipment used for listening to or receiving radiotransmissions, such as "scanners." Section 302(d) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 302(d), prohibits the FCC from authorizing scanning equipment that is capable of receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated to domestic cellular services, that is capable of readily being altered by the user to intercept cellular communications, or that may be equipped with decoders that convert digital transmissions to analog voice audio. In addition, such receivers may not be manufactured in the United States or imported for use in the United States after April 26, 1994. 47 CFR 15.121. FCC regulations also prohibit the sale or lease of scanning equipment not authorized by the FCC. 47CFR 2.803. ("The Act" is the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; the amendment in question was enacted in 1991 and codified at 47 USC 302(d). We have considered the possibility that 302(d) might be unconstitutional, but that's an extremely long story which would be a distraction from the point I'm trying to make right now. Meanwhile, 302(d) is very much alive and well.) (2) The VCR Macrovision mandate, an obscure and little-known part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (not to be confused with the better-known "anticircumvention" provisions). (k) Certain Analog Devices and Certain Technological Measures. - (1) Certain analog devices. - (A) Effective 18 months after the date of the enactment of this chapter, no person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any - (i) VHS format analog video cassette recorder unless such recorder conforms to the automatic gain control copy control technology; [... many more subparagraphs snipped ...] This is codified as 17 USC 1201(k) and is an exception to the "no mandate" DMCA provisions at 17 USC 1201(c)(3). 1201(k) banned VCRs which did not respond to Macrovision signal degradation ("AGC copy control"). When 1201(k)(1)(A) came into force, these VCRs completely disappeared from the ordinary consumer market in the U.S. This is not because AGC is a technically sound copy control scheme; the exact nature of the signal degradation _and means of fixing it_ are disclosed in Macrovision's patents and have also been extensively documented. They are published in books; the technology is completely understood by analog video engineers. Still, you can't get or sell those Macrovision-free VCRs new in the consumer market. 17 USC 1201(k)(5) and 1204(a) of the same title mean you can be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense. Selling a single Macrovision-free VCR for commercial gain now carries a possible _five year jail sentence_. And that has nothing to do with the technical merits of the technology. There are still used VCRs without Macrovision sold legally in the U.S., and certainly there are new (mainly imported) VCRs sold illegally -- along with Macrovision correctors, which appear to violate 17 USC 1201(b) (same penalty as (k)) -- but clearly this law has had a big effect on the market here. Anyway, that's the end of my historical examples. If you agree that the BPDG proposal is a threat to what you're doing, we'd be very grateful if you'd talk further with us. We really want to establish that there are people who disagree with this course and who'll be affected by it. -- Seth Schoen Staff Technologist schoen@xxxxxxx Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/ 454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110 1 415 436 9333 x107
