Social Feed
Ok... let me first apologize for my first two postings being questions (sometimes really just a statement) that may stir the pot, but the real reason people participate in forums like this is get information about the issues they deem as important.
Yesterday I mentioned the picture quality, but the other question/statement that hopefully SOMEONE here knows about is: what will be Dish Networks stance on the anticopy bit (broadcast flag) and our DVRs? If you don't know what I'm talking about go here and study up on it... its nasty.
I'm worried that Dish Network will retrofit their existing DVR's with firmware that honors the broadcast flag, and then we will be at the mercy of the broadcasters again (i.e. watching on THEIR schedule instead of ours). I just don't wan't some big corporation telling me what I can record and what I can't record, and I DEFINITELY don't like being treated like a criminal. This is also the reason why they'll pry my big screen analog television from my cold dead fingers. As long as I've got that analog television, I can always capture even if they don't want me to.
Again.. sorry for the rants and/or questions that are somewhat flamebait, but its what is important to me. If someone knows how this might turn out.. offer some insight and I promise I'll play nice from now on unless someone mentions these two topics again .
Yesterday I mentioned the picture quality, but the other question/statement that hopefully SOMEONE here knows about is: what will be Dish Networks stance on the anticopy bit (broadcast flag) and our DVRs? If you don't know what I'm talking about go here and study up on it... its nasty.
I'm worried that Dish Network will retrofit their existing DVR's with firmware that honors the broadcast flag, and then we will be at the mercy of the broadcasters again (i.e. watching on THEIR schedule instead of ours). I just don't wan't some big corporation telling me what I can record and what I can't record, and I DEFINITELY don't like being treated like a criminal. This is also the reason why they'll pry my big screen analog television from my cold dead fingers. As long as I've got that analog television, I can always capture even if they don't want me to.
Again.. sorry for the rants and/or questions that are somewhat flamebait, but its what is important to me. If someone knows how this might turn out.. offer some insight and I promise I'll play nice from now on unless someone mentions these two topics again .
25 Replies
·
4798 views
S
Ken F. is technically right, but....
Ken- you did such a nice job of explaining the technical aspects of the BF that I wouldn't be suprised if you were in the "industry"
. BUUUUUUUT, you were a bit disingenous in some areas.
First, it is important to tell everybody concerned about this issue that the BF is still in what the FCC calls a "proposal" stage - that is, the exact rule has not been finalized and they are still soliciting comments about how the BF will be implemented. That means that, despite the stated intentions to not require the BF in certain scenarios, that can, and indeed probably will, change after they are paid off....errrr, lobbied by the "content industry". So, in short, no one, including the FCC, even knows what the final implementation of the BF will be like.
Second, your statement that the FCC has expressly disclaimed ever implementing the "Copy Never" flag is true only for "standard" OTA (i.e. free TV) broadcasts. The FCC clearly states in the BF proposal that this option can indeed by implemented/imposed by MCVD's (satellite and cable oeprators). Since, almost 90% of U.S. households (I believe that the exact number is 87.5%) get their TV from a "pay source", that means that a whole boatload of people could/will be denied their fair use rights for content they have legally "purchased" (via their subscription fee).
Third, your explantion of the stated "prevention of internet distribution of content" is correct, as far as it goes. But, no where in the BF proposal does it state how a device can be "hooked" to the internet, or what constitutes an "internet capable" device. I can (and do) hook my 510 to my home PC via composite cables and my PC is connected to the internet. Does that mean my 510 is "hooked" to the internet? To the MPAA, it damn sure does. The problem with your pat statement that "standalone devices will not be affected by the BF" is that there is absolutely no evidence of that. Without laying out details and defintions, nobody can know how the final BF implementation will run. In fact, the FCC (Powell in particular)has already publicly acknowledged that cable and satellite operators will most likely "Copy Never" flag PPV content, which means that none of us will be able to record that PPV that we PAID for. Extending the MPAA's stated intention to prevent the transfer of content (both digitally and by analog means) then there is every reason to believe that this "copy protection" could indeed be extended to standalone devices (yes, even to the internal HD of a DVR) by the time that the BF actually goes into effeect in June 2005. As I'm sure that you know, the BF is simply a bit in the digital TV (OTA, sat or cable) bitstream - this bit will by checked for its setting in every hardware device that "touches" the bitstream (including the TV itself). It would be a trivial matter to check the BF bit BEFORE (probalby in the buffering stage) the DVR allows it to go the hard drive.
Fourth, since you sound familiar with the 5C/HDCP (wich predates the BF proposal) system, then you probalby realize that the FCC-mandated BF proposal is based very much along the lines of the 5C system (in fact, you could say that it was the 5C system/folks that "inspired" the FCC). And the 5C system is designed to lock the bitstream down at every level that it touches. to esnure compliance. This is what the original CPWG (Copy Protection Working Group - Hollywood's special task force that originally designed the BF and bribed the FCC to implement) BF proposal mandated - a complete "strip search" of the bitstream at every level to scour out "noncomplying" devices. In short, the final impelementaion of the BF will probalby be closer to its "5C-like" original intention rather than the more "public friendly" version proposed by the FCC.
Finally, please do not take this post as a flame or a personal attack; actually, I commend you b/c you sound as if you have actually read the BF proposal, which many commentors on this issue have not. I just want to make sure that everybody who cares about this issue understands that the final implications of the BF proposal are not known at this time and that your rather rosy forecast of a world where "Big Content" loves the American people and generously decides to "allow" us our complete and unfettered fair use rights is at best, wildly optimistic and at worst, deliberately deceiving. Thanks for reading.
Brian
Ken- you did such a nice job of explaining the technical aspects of the BF that I wouldn't be suprised if you were in the "industry"
. BUUUUUUUT, you were a bit disingenous in some areas. First, it is important to tell everybody concerned about this issue that the BF is still in what the FCC calls a "proposal" stage - that is, the exact rule has not been finalized and they are still soliciting comments about how the BF will be implemented. That means that, despite the stated intentions to not require the BF in certain scenarios, that can, and indeed probably will, change after they are paid off....errrr, lobbied by the "content industry". So, in short, no one, including the FCC, even knows what the final implementation of the BF will be like.
Second, your statement that the FCC has expressly disclaimed ever implementing the "Copy Never" flag is true only for "standard" OTA (i.e. free TV) broadcasts. The FCC clearly states in the BF proposal that this option can indeed by implemented/imposed by MCVD's (satellite and cable oeprators). Since, almost 90% of U.S. households (I believe that the exact number is 87.5%) get their TV from a "pay source", that means that a whole boatload of people could/will be denied their fair use rights for content they have legally "purchased" (via their subscription fee).
Third, your explantion of the stated "prevention of internet distribution of content" is correct, as far as it goes. But, no where in the BF proposal does it state how a device can be "hooked" to the internet, or what constitutes an "internet capable" device. I can (and do) hook my 510 to my home PC via composite cables and my PC is connected to the internet. Does that mean my 510 is "hooked" to the internet? To the MPAA, it damn sure does. The problem with your pat statement that "standalone devices will not be affected by the BF" is that there is absolutely no evidence of that. Without laying out details and defintions, nobody can know how the final BF implementation will run. In fact, the FCC (Powell in particular)has already publicly acknowledged that cable and satellite operators will most likely "Copy Never" flag PPV content, which means that none of us will be able to record that PPV that we PAID for. Extending the MPAA's stated intention to prevent the transfer of content (both digitally and by analog means) then there is every reason to believe that this "copy protection" could indeed be extended to standalone devices (yes, even to the internal HD of a DVR) by the time that the BF actually goes into effeect in June 2005. As I'm sure that you know, the BF is simply a bit in the digital TV (OTA, sat or cable) bitstream - this bit will by checked for its setting in every hardware device that "touches" the bitstream (including the TV itself). It would be a trivial matter to check the BF bit BEFORE (probalby in the buffering stage) the DVR allows it to go the hard drive.
Fourth, since you sound familiar with the 5C/HDCP (wich predates the BF proposal) system, then you probalby realize that the FCC-mandated BF proposal is based very much along the lines of the 5C system (in fact, you could say that it was the 5C system/folks that "inspired" the FCC). And the 5C system is designed to lock the bitstream down at every level that it touches. to esnure compliance. This is what the original CPWG (Copy Protection Working Group - Hollywood's special task force that originally designed the BF and bribed the FCC to implement) BF proposal mandated - a complete "strip search" of the bitstream at every level to scour out "noncomplying" devices. In short, the final impelementaion of the BF will probalby be closer to its "5C-like" original intention rather than the more "public friendly" version proposed by the FCC.
Finally, please do not take this post as a flame or a personal attack; actually, I commend you b/c you sound as if you have actually read the BF proposal, which many commentors on this issue have not. I just want to make sure that everybody who cares about this issue understands that the final implications of the BF proposal are not known at this time and that your rather rosy forecast of a world where "Big Content" loves the American people and generously decides to "allow" us our complete and unfettered fair use rights is at best, wildly optimistic and at worst, deliberately deceiving. Thanks for reading.
Brian
Lifetime Supporter
I know HipKat said that they were working on conversions but we got the official news yesterday right from Dish that starting next month all DMA's will be on the western arc, and all customers will be assigned to that. That's gonna mean a lot of customers around here aren't gonna get Dish unless there are exceptions. Too many mountains and trees.
167 Replies
·
4639 views
TWiT Tech Podcast Network
Time for another AWESOME video from the TWIT Network!
View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SqPMCS9OOSY
Direct YouTube Link - Preorders Open for the Brax Wink De-Googled Phone #shorts
TWIT's Website
TWIT Live Feed
View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SqPMCS9OOSY
Direct YouTube Link - Preorders Open for the Brax Wink De-Googled Phone #shorts
TWIT's Website
TWIT Live Feed
0 Replies
·
4 views
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
This is a thread that will keep you apprised of 4K events that will be showing on Dish channel 540. Keep looking here for information.
As of today, 9-27-17, there are no scheduled events posted for the next 2 weeks. That is subject to change on a daily basis.
As of today, 9-27-17, there are no scheduled events posted for the next 2 weeks. That is subject to change on a daily basis.
768 Replies
·
167877 views
. can we say over priced garbage!!!I'm thinking of switching to DirecTV and wanted to know what equipment I should be asking for.
I'm wanting wired satellite due to that fact that I live in the sticks and there is no reliable, decent speed internet for streaming available.
What would be the correct equipment for three 4K tvs in the house?
I'm wanting wired satellite due to that fact that I live in the sticks and there is no reliable, decent speed internet for streaming available.
What would be the correct equipment for three 4K tvs in the house?
59 Replies
·
1065 views
S
why not just do a rebranding of the two
As they pivot away from using dishes and more toward streaming, the DirecTV brand would make much more sense.why not just do a rebranding of the two
been there 
S
agree to a certain point!!! is charlies pockets gonna get tight and will he cancel channels because he don't want to pay for them??? a hopper 3 on dtv channel lineup would be amazing and every mans dream come true lol
Squirrels have eaten my antenna wire on my home unit that is a car radio running of the 12 volt side of my solar system. I need a new antenna and would like to add something to one of my existing masts. The reason I am looking at this that I am also covered in trees which has not been a problem, but something mast mounted would future proof me. Thanks in advance.
7 Replies
·
171 views
A
We have the pro-500 and it's a beast pulling in the signal!!! always full bars no matter how much it rains. it's worth every penny
I am a animal lover, but this year I gave up gardening. Even moved it to potted plants on the second story deck last year. Can't tell you how much use my Ruger 10-22 got, but it was a losing battle for me. Never got any food. So now they eat coax instead! 20 acres of dense woods behind me and my stuff tastes better, either veggies or wires!
A
i might think about running cables through some conduit to prevent the Squirrels from chewing em all to hell
Pub Member / Supporter
Walter Koenig, Chekov on Original ‘Star Trek,’ Dies at 90
Walter Koenig, who memorably played Chekov in the original "Star Trek" series and seven "Star Trek" feature films, died Sunday in Los Angeles.
variety.com
3 Replies
·
38 views
Rest In Peace 
Supporting Founder
Really excited for this season with Kentucky having a new coach and some really exciting recruits. Probably won't last long, but here's hoping this season is great.
161 Replies
·
2306 views
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Cutting Edge
Sometimes a thread gets so many posts in it that is can cause issues for the server so that why today we introduce The Song Name Game Part 3!
So let the game continue!
The last song was added by Bobby who posted...
One Meat Ball - Andrews Sisters
CONTINUE ON AND HAVE FUN! WELCOME HOME TO SATELLITEGUYS.US!
Here are the original rules for the game as posted by WebbyDude back in 2006. http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads/68645-Song-Name-Game
Just name a song title and the band who performed it. The next person does the same thing, but needs to list a song title or band name which includes a word from the previous entry. Pick songs from any genre.
Example:
Long Live Rock and Roll -- Rainbow
Rainbow in the Dark -- Dio
Another example:
Ride the Lightning -- Metallica
Lightning Strikes -- Ozzy Osbourne
Get it?
An additional note: we all know that song titles, sometimes, use profane words. Because this is a family friendly website it is advised that you clean up that title up a bit. This is accomplished by using something like sh!t instead of the real word. Thanks....
So let the game continue!
The last song was added by Bobby who posted...
One Meat Ball - Andrews Sisters
CONTINUE ON AND HAVE FUN! WELCOME HOME TO SATELLITEGUYS.US!
Here are the original rules for the game as posted by WebbyDude back in 2006. http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads/68645-Song-Name-Game
Just name a song title and the band who performed it. The next person does the same thing, but needs to list a song title or band name which includes a word from the previous entry. Pick songs from any genre.
Example:
Long Live Rock and Roll -- Rainbow
Rainbow in the Dark -- Dio
Another example:
Ride the Lightning -- Metallica
Lightning Strikes -- Ozzy Osbourne
Get it?
An additional note: we all know that song titles, sometimes, use profane words. Because this is a family friendly website it is advised that you clean up that title up a bit. This is accomplished by using something like sh!t instead of the real word. Thanks....
68619 Replies
·
2678277 views
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
We have a Breakfast and Dinner thread so...
Continuing from the Breakfast thread, found Cornbread mix so ...
Yellow Cornbread Mix
2 Hatch Green Chiles -diced
1 Egg
2/3 cup of milk
add to greased pan
Bake for 400f 20-25 minutes(From instructions)
now to put together and try... this to go with pinto beans...
Continuing from the Breakfast thread, found Cornbread mix so ...
Yellow Cornbread Mix
2 Hatch Green Chiles -diced
1 Egg
2/3 cup of milk
add to greased pan
Bake for 400f 20-25 minutes(From instructions)
now to put together and try... this to go with pinto beans...
5447 Replies
·
335864 views
