Downloadable Conditional Access System: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:08, 22 February 2007

Latest revision as of 20:43, 10 July 2024

(40 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Multiple issues|

{{future product}}

{{Lead missing|date=July 2024}}

'''Downloadable Conditional Access System''' or '''DCAS''' is a proposal advanced by [[CableLabs]] for secure software download of a specific Conditional Access client (computer program) which controls [[Digital Rights Management]] (DRM) into a [[OpenCable Application Platform|OCAP]]-compliant host consumer media device. The [[National Cable & Telecommunications Association]] (NCTA) proposes that DCAS be used as a substitute for physical [[CableCARD]]s, a standard also created by CableLabs for which products began appearing in August, 2004. DCAS is a controversial proposal for a variety of reasons: it currently does not exist, has no set deadlines for support on all Cable systems, the specification even in draft form is not currently public, may not satisfy FCC requirements that security modules be separable, and requires an operating system (OCAP) that a majority of [[consumer electronics]] (CE) manufacturers do not wish to implement.

{{Update|reason=Was this ever used?|date=July 2024}}

}}

'''Downloadable Conditional Access System''' or '''DCAS''' was a proposal advanced by [[CableLabs]] for secure software download of a specific Conditional Access client (computer program) which controls [[digital rights management]] (DRM) into an [[OpenCable Application Platform|OCAP]]-compliant host consumer media device. The [[National Cable & Telecommunications Association]] (NCTA) proposed that DCAS be used as a substitute for physical [[CableCARD]]s, a standard also created by CableLabs for which products began appearing in August 2004 as part of industry compliance to the [[#FCC mandate|FCC mandate]], which in turn is pursuant to the [[Telecommunications Act of 1996]]. DCAS is growing in popularity as a less expensive alternative for CableCARD, with major North American operator deployments from Cablevision<ref>Cisco powers DCAS deployment at Cablevision, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMJg53hy9jM</ref> and Charter.<ref>Charter unveils Worldbox- Cisco key supplier of boxes with downloadable security, http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/charter-unveils-its-worldbox/386685</ref> DCAS deployments can be expected to grow in the coming years, thanks to favorable regulatory view from the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014<ref>[[STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014]]</ref> and FCC appointing a Downloadable Security Technical Advisory Committee,<ref>FCC appoints downloadable security advisory committee, http://www.fcc.gov/document/appointment-members-downloadable-security-advisory-committee</ref> and wider support for key ladder (K-LAD) functionality from system-on-chip (SoC) vendors and set-top box manufacturers.

DCAS in the early days, was a controversial proposal for a variety of reasons: it did not exist, had no set deadlines for support on all cable systems, no specification even in draft form was public, may not have satisfied FCC requirements that security modules be separable, and required an operating system (OCAP) that a majority of [[consumer electronics]] (CE) manufacturers did not wish to implement. The DCAS project was abandoned by CableLabs in 2009.<ref>Jeff Baumgartner, MSOs Closing PolyCipher Headquarters, Light Reading Cable, (June 5, 2009), http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=177662&site=lr_cable.</ref>

[[Image:DCAS system diagram.jpg|thumb|400px|DCAS System Diagram]]

DCAS, as currently envisioned, removesremoved the need for physical [[set-top box]]es or [[CableCARD]]s currently required to protect [[encryption|encrypted]] digital content. It iswas proposed that instead of a card with removable circuitry, that a custom [[ASIC]] chip could be soldered onto the circuitboard of any digital cable -ready device. DCAS software would then run on this custom chip. Additional circuitry needed to run the OCAP operating system would be required. OCAP programs then would be used as the sole method of interacting with DCAS since it will enable cable companies to force the download of new security software. As set-top box ASICs have now advanced to SoC implementations, the minimum hardware circuitry to store key ladders (K-LAD) is embedded in the silicon, enabling much of the security functions to be implemented in software. Further, just as traditional set-top box functionality such as user-interface and middleware are moving to the cloud, DCAS enables much of the security functions also to move to the server side or the cloud. This allows thin client set-top boxes to be deployed that can be remotely managed, in lieu of the more expensive cableCARD based systems.

The basic purpose of DCAS iswas to implement DRM protection in software, supported by future OCAP-compliant consumer devices such as [[digital television]]s, [[digital video recorder|DVR]]s, and set-top boxes (still required to support legacy non-OCAP-compliant devices). This secureswould secure the information transmitted in the link between the cable company and the consumer device. Besides decryption, the DCAS software controlswould control how the content is used- whetherused—whether it must be deleted immediately after viewing, or after a set period of time, which devices it may be transferedtransferred to and if transfer or recording is permitted. The scheme maycould possibly be used more broadly and iswas being advanced by [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s company [[NDS Group|NDS]] as a DRM method useful also for [[portable media player]]s and other devices not attached to cable networks. AAn allegedly working DCAS prototype was created by [[Samsung]] and NDS for the cable industry and was demonstrated to the FCC in November 2005. <ref>[http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518185105 Implementation of Section 204]</ref>

According to Brian Dietz of the [[National Cable & Telecommunications Association]] (NCTA):

<blockquote>

...we expect downloadable security to be supported nationwide by [[MultiMultiple system operator|MSOsMSO]]s by July 2008.

</blockquote>

It iswas asserted by proponents that DCAS providesprovided greater security for the cable industry because it allows them to change their entire security structure by downloading new software into host devices. If a particular encryption algorithm is cracked, it cancould be replaced by another one. Detractors notenoted that if the physical circuitry is compromised, that it may not be replaced as is the case with CableCARDs. Some DCAS scenarios docould use removable cards: OCAP-based devices may incorporate internal support for a kind of "[[smart card]]" (similar to the current [[Subscriber Identity Module|SIM]] chip in a [[Global System for Mobile Communications|GSM]] cell-phone) to identify the subscriber and provide further protection. Proponents assertasserted that DCAS is more supportable since DCAS devices would not require a qualified technician to install the card. Detractors assertasserted that the final version of DCAS may require a physical card insertion, and that technicians are not required to insert CableCARDs anyway, since they are merely the same kind of cards that consumers routinely insert in their laptops. It iswas asserted that if Cablecable companies arewere finally forced to agree on a standard for two -way communication that CablecardsCableCARDs will be able to be remotely configured as would be the case with DCAS devices.

The expectation of the appearance of DCAS as a possible future technology has beenwas used as a reason that the FCC should release cable companies from obligations regarding CableCardsCableCARDs. [[Verizon FiOS]] wisheswished to be released from having to support cablecardsCableCARDs at all on its network. Cable companies point to DCAS as a reason that they should be released from their obligation to use CablecardsCableCARDs in their devices, as the FCC directed in 1998. The [[Consumer Electronics Association]] representing major Consumerconsumer electronics manufacturers disagreesdisagreed with these applications for waivers pointing to the insubstantiality of the proposal and that Cablecable companies are notoriously late and half -hearted in their support of their own standards, as evidenced by their behavior with their earlier CableCARD proposal. Detractors of DCAS point out that the proposal is being used to sow [[fear, uncertainty, and doubt]] in the minds of consumers, CE companies, and the FCC. Consumers are motivated to hold off buying CablecardCableCARD devices, CE companies are wondering whether their cablecardCableCARD technology investments will soon be obsolete, and it causes doubt amongst FCC regulators whether they should enforce deadlines and restrictions placed on cable companies regarding CableCARDs. Detractors point to this as the latest in a decade -long set of delaying tactics that the cable company has used to avoid compliance with the [[Telecommunications Act of 1996]]. Cable companies counter that CableCARD devices have failed in the marketplace and that it would be foolish for them to be forced to use CableCARDs when the superior technology of DCAS will soon be available.

== ConsumerFCC Issuesmandate ==

The FCC has ruled that starting July 1, 2007, cable customers are to be able to purchase DVRs and other third-party devices to legally view digital cable without having to rent hardware from the cable company.

Early and present adopters of cable High Definition have seen their cable bills skyrocket. The reason is two-fold. First, HD content has a price. Second, and more relevent to DCAS is because early adopters have been forced monopolistically to rent cable boxes, cableCards, and remotes from cable companies just to view digital content. CableCards v1.0 if used in place of a cable boxes do reduce cable bills, by lowering rental fees. CableCard v2.0 will reduce costs further, along with providing 2-way communication for VOD, PPY, programing information, etc. DCAS will entirely eliminate need for cards.

On July 1, 2007 consumers will be able to purchase DVRs, TVs and, other 3rd party devices to legally view digital cable without having to rent hardware from the cable company. [[OpenCable Application Platform]]. Increased competition gives consumers better price and products. For example, say a cable subsriber is currently paying $20/month for cable boxes/dvr/remotes. On 7/1/07 he has the option to cut this cost, but will have to replace with something else, say a 3rd party DVR. The prior $20 cable monthly rental fee adds up to $240/year or $480 for 2 years. More likely than not, the subsriber will find a DVR for less than $480, and he will obtain more features than what cable offered. Then, and here's the good part, after two years the subscriber will pocket $240 every year because he owns the box.

== See also ==

Line 25 ⟶ 28:

* [[Copy protection]]

* [[OpenCable Application Platform]]

* [[Conditional Access]]

== External link References==

{{Reflist}}

*{{cite web|last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= | date= |url=http://www.opencable.com/dcas/ |title=OpenCable™ / DCAS™ |format= |work= |pages= |publisher=[[CableLabs]] | language= |accessdate=2006-06-05 |curly= }}

==External links==

[[Category:Cable television]]

*{{cite web|url=http://www.opencable.com/dcas/ |title=OpenCable / DCAS |publisher=[[CableLabs]] |access-date=2006-06-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060326111423/http://www.opencable.com/dcas/ |archive-date=2006-03-26 |url-status=dead }}

[[Category:Digital television]]

[[Category:Digital cable]]

{{North American DTV}}

{{com-stub}}

[[Category:DigitalConditional-access television broadcasting]]

[[Category:CableDigital televisioncable]]