Indie Telco Local Content Workshop Information
Quick Jump Menu to this Issue’s Articles November 11th, 2004 Overview A Gateway to Faster IPTV Deployments?: Content Protection Is a Must-Have:
Content Protection Is a Must-Have
by Ken Pyle ([email protected]), Viodi, LLC
November 11, 2004 Issue
I had the privilege and honor of presenting today on a NTCA webcast regarding content protection. My message was pretty simple and the same as what I have said in these pages for a long time; content protection is a must-have. To see why I think that is the case, here are a few links to previously penned articles on the subject.
Content Protection and the Cable Programmer
Parks Associates View of Digital Rights Management
Importance of Content Protection – Part 1
Content Protection …..The Rest of the Story..
If that is not enough evidence that content protection is a must-have, ABI Research has a report regarding the various content protection systems that are available. The online polling of the conference attendees suggested that 72% of them plan on implementing some form of content protection, indicating that this topic is of serious concern for independent telcos.
Andy Mathieson, Director of Laten Systems, provided the real interesting portion of the presentation, as he provided a history of content protection and discussed where it is going.
Mathieson distinguished between Conditional Access (CA) and Digital Rights Management (DRM). He suggested that one studio described the definition of Conditional Access versus DRM as the control of tethered versus un-tethered content. Conditional Access controls content that is played on devices that are controlled from a network provider (e.g., set-tops). DRM has traditionally referred to un-tethered devices owned and controlled by the user (e.g., PCs).
He suggested that the definitions of DRM and CAS are starting to merge, as the devices and ownership are starting to shift. For instance, Scientific Atlanta has plans for a set-top that will allow people to burn content to DVDs. This device would require both conditional access to protect the content, as well as DRM rules to ensure that customers burn only what the content owners allow. Thus, Latens have started to use the term content protection, as an umbrella term to cover both CA and DRM.
The other thing that has evolved is the separation of content protection from the set-top hardware. Smart card technology allowed for content protection to be renewable, while being separate from the hardware . Smart cards clearly were a big improvement, but the logistics of getting new cards in the market can mean it may take six months to cycle out in a new algorithm. In that period, the hackers have a chance to crack the new cards.
The advent of two-way broadband allows for software-based security systems. That is, the original smart card systems were designed for broadcast satellite systems. With IP Networks, the path is two way, so that the set-top boxes can be queried as part of content protection process and only authorized devices will be allowed to view the content. The software smart card is virtual and resides within the set-top box.
In the event of a hack, sending out new software smart cards is fast as it only requires as a download to all of the authorized set-top boxes. Quick repair of a security breach is critical as the longer a security problem festers, the more money it costs the operator and the more likely a content provider would pull their content. Mathieson summed up the importance of an efficient content protection solution when he said, “The best content protection system is one that lets you keep the most money.”
All displayed trademarks, logos and service marks are the property of their respective owners. © 2004, Viodi, LLC. All Rights Reserved
Leave a Reply