Indie Telco Local Content Workshop Information
Quick Jump Menu to this Issue’s Articles September 1st, 2004 Overview Content Protection and the Cable Programmer: Parks Associates View of Digital Rights Management: Underlying Fee: Be aware!: The Independent Telco Space According to Viodi:
Content Protection and the Cable Programmer
by Ken Pyle ([email protected]), Viodi, LLC
September 1, 2004 Issue
After years of promise, Internet Protocol Television networks are proving to be economically viable alternatives to Hybrid Fiber Coaxial architectures. As Steven Hawley suggested in last week’s online issue of Telephony, IPTV networks may have crossed the chasm between early adopters and early majority and that this technology approach is poised for the big time. The challenge now is to convince the cable programmers (e.g., MTV, HBO, Showtime, etc.) that these IPTV networks are secure enough for their content.
There has been widespread concern among operators as to whether cable programmers will provide content for IPTV networks. Many of these telcos are already experienced cable providers, so their concerns are real and result from their first-hand discussions with cable programmers. What has been surprising is that the requirement for content protection is coming not just from the “premium” cable programmers, but from some of the basic cable programmers as well.
The 200 Mile and 20 Foot Problem
The exact requirement for content protection varies significantly from cable programmer to cable programmer. The common theme with all of the cable programmers is that they want to make sure they are paid for all of the subscribers who receive their signals. Hence, they are concerned any time their signal is vulnerable to theft and piracy.
My recent discussions with cable programmers have reinforced how important it is for operators to document their network configuration and associated content protection program. Cable programmers definitely consider the application, when determining the level of content protection that is required. For instance, an analog RF hotel cable system will have much less stringent requirements for content protection than will, say, an all digital direct broadcast satellite network. The challenge the operators face is what I have come to term the 200 mile problem and the 20 foot problem.
The 200 mile problem is the idea that signals may originate from a centralized, shared headend and are distributed on a shared fiber ring. As the signals travel through the network, they will pass through facilities not necessarily owned by the telco that is contracting for the headend signals. Some of the cable programmers are concerned that if these signals are in “the clear” as they traverse the fiber ring, an unscrupulous operator of one of the third-party facilities might siphon off the signals and use them to create a cost-free, cable programming line-up.
Although the 200 mile problem seems pretty unlikely, the 20-foot problem is very real and will grow in proportion to the success of IPTV. The 20 foot problem, as characterized by Bill Fogarty, Vice President of New Distribution for The Weather Channel, is the idea that digital signals are being distributed on pieces of wire (or conceivably wirelessly) within the house. Currently, most IPTV configurations consist of an xDSL or FTTH modem which has a network interface and an Ethernet port(s) to connect to various consumer premise equipment. In an IPTV application, a set-top connects via Ethernet to the xDSL or FTTH modem.
The content carried by this Ethernet link is, obviously, digital and would be a perfect “master” for pirated copies. It is not too hard to imagine a technologically sophisticated user “sniffing” this Ethernet link, recording a pristine digital copy on a PC and distributing it worldwide via the Internet. The likelihood of this sort of theft would seem pretty low, but what if this Ethernet wire was suddenly replaced with a customer-installed wireless router….you know, the kind where people routinely ignore the configuration of security settings?
So, even if the odds of someone sniffing digital signals and redistributing them may be pretty low today, the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) is another motivation for networks to demand content protection. One cable programmer that I have talked to suggests that the owners or distributors of “high value” (e.g. content explicitly paid for) must make their best efforts to protect the content. Otherwise, they may effectively lose some of the legal protection afforded them by the DMCA when they seek remedies against content pirates.
Give Me Some Specifics….
As to the specifics of what is required for content protection, the cable programmers are pretty pragmatic and treat the each application on a case-by-case basis. The most technically sophisticated cable programmers are suggesting some sort of encryption system will be required using an AES or Triple DES approach. Whether it is smart card or software-based is not important to the cable programmer, as long as the encryption scheme is renewable in the event that it is hacked.
In other words, “name-brand” conditional access systems will be readily approved. Cable programmers will look beyond just the conditional access system and will want to ensure that their affiliates secure the physical infrastructure, as well take measures to prevent stealing by “rogue” employees. As has been discussed in previous Viodi View articles, probably the most important thing an operator can do is foster a company-wide attitude that content protection is a top priority.
Conclusion;
It is inevitable that some sort of content encryption will be required to satisfy the needs of the content providers. This encryption will need to take the form of AES or Triple DES or some other equivalent. The key for success with any sort of protection scheme will be the ability to detect and fix the inevitable hacks. Regardless of the technology deployed, the willingness of the operator to make security a top priority is probably the most important thing an operator can do to ensure cable programmers that their content will be secure.
[Note: there is some additional information on this topic, as well as some interesting notes that will be published in the Club Viodi section of the next issue of the Viodi View].
All displayed trademarks, logos and service marks are the property of their respective owners. © 2004, Viodi, LLC. All Rights Reserved
IP Video Conference Agenda
Economic and Product Feature Considerations for Telecom Network Architectures
The Consumer Electronics Interface – Can You See Me Now?
Regulation 101 – What a Telco Has to Consider When Deploying Video & Other New Services
Get in the Game – How do Games Play in a Service Providers’ Plans?
Advertising and other Alternative Revenue Sources
Integrating VoIP Content Into a Telco’s Bundled Service Offering
Making Sticky Bundles – Baking up new ways to gain and retain customers
Leave a Reply