eem@jc3b21.UUCP (Emery E. Mandel) (02/18/86)
Earlier this year, HBO and Cinemax started scrambling their satellite signals. They said that they were losing millions because people were able to get their signal and not pay for it through "relatively inexpensive" backyard satellite dishes. Did they think about how much satellite dish sales would go down? Did they think about how people might turn to home video rather than cable and satellite programming? Did they think about signal distortion because of the additional scrambling and descrambling taking place? Did they think about how customers they had on CABLE might have discontinued service because of disgust with the greedy attitude of HBO? How about the black market for satellite signal descramblers? They probably didn't think much of that, either. Congress could pass legislation which would ban satellite scrambling but what would be the end result? HBO might file a lawsuit against the federal government. Oh no! HBO is on the warpath! They're suing our government for 10 million of our tax dollars! Meanwhile, that same 10 million could go to some better cause. One of the first thoughts to come to mind is to NASA or to Medicare. Well, HBO might sue...but it would make them look bad. You wonder if they care what they look like, though. After all, they've already scrambled. What will they think of next? Emery Mandel "Gee, sure is warm down here in Florida..."
terry2@ihlpm.UUCP (Nelson) (02/26/86)
Emery Mandel writes: > Earlier this year, HBO and Cinemax started > scrambling their satellite signals. They said that > they were losing millions because people were able > to get their signal and not pay for it through > "relatively inexpensive" backyard satellite > dishes. > > Did they think about how much satellite dish sales > would go down? (mild dish flame on) Why should HBO care about sagging dish sales? Those once flourishing dish sales were literally at HBO's expense. Who do you think is paying indirectly for HBO's losses? I'll bet I'm paying more for HBO because of those lost revenues from satellite dishes. > Did they think about how people > might turn to home video rather than cable and > satellite programming? What people? You mean the people who paid $2000+ for a satellite dish knowing they would get HBO (and others) free? What about MOST HBO viewers who regularly pay for the service through their cable company? Sounds like Mr. Mandel is a satellite dish owner who has enjoyed HBO "free" and is now upset that he'll have to pay for it like most people. Note that the $2000+ paid for the dish and the electronics does not pay for, or contribute to, the programming that dish owners receive. Furthermore they all knew that when they paid for them.. > Did they think about > signal distortion because of the additional > scrambling and descrambling taking place? I have not notice ANY audio or video degradation on my cable since the scrambling started. > Did they think about how customers they had on > CABLE might have discontinued service because of > disgust with the greedy attitude of HBO? Greedy? Hmmm.. Just who is being greedy here? HBO is just trying to get everyone who watches it to pay for it. Doesn't sound too greedy to me. However, dish-owners who get upset because they can't get HBO free anymore........ > How about the black market for satellite signal > descramblers? They probably didn't think much > of that, either. Oh yes they did. As previously described on the net the scrambling method is fairly sophisticated (read not cheap). (flame off) > ... > Emery Mandel A personal retraction to Mr. Mandel IF he is not a dish owner otherwise it stands. > "Gee, sure is warm down here in Florida..." I wish I could say the same for Illinois!! -- ..ihnp4!ihlpm!terry2 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "All this is | Terry Nelson | because of me Keep | AT&T Bell Laboratories | and not my It | Naperville, Illinois | employer!" Warm =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
jimb@tekcbi.UUCP (Jim Boland) (02/28/86)
In article <733@ihlpm.UUCP>, terry2@ihlpm.UUCP (Nelson) writes: > > Emery Mandel writes: > > Earlier this year, HBO and Cinemax started > > scrambling their satellite signals. They said that > > they were losing millions because people were able > > to get their signal and not pay for it through > > "relatively inexpensive" backyard satellite > > dishes. > > > > Did they think about how much satellite dish sales > > would go down? > > (mild dish flame on) > > Why should HBO care about sagging dish sales? Who do you > think is paying indirectly for HBO's losses? I'll bet I'm paying > more for HBO because of those lost revenues from satellite dishes. I agree. HBO (and other programmers) should not care what happens to dish sales as that is not the market they are interested in. They are in the business of supplying programming for cable viewers. That programming costs money and that money must come from somewhere. Owners of satellite dishes do not possess any "rights" to view that programming without paying, contrary to their belief and any laws which have been passed. However, I doubt that you are paying more for HBO because of lost revenues. And besides, HBO has publicly stated that they are not after the individual dish owner. They are after the bars, taverns, hotels, and motels - the ones who use one dish to feed many people without paying. >Did they think about how people > > might turn to home video rather than cable and > > satellite programming? > > What people? You mean the people who paid $2000+ for a satellite > dish knowing they would get HBO (and others) free? What about MOST > HBO viewers who regularly pay for the service through their cable > company? Sounds like Mr. Mandel is a satellite dish owner who has > enjoyed HBO "free" and is now upset that he'll have to pay for it > like most people. Note that the $2000+ paid for the dish and the > electronics does not pay for, or contribute to, the programming that > dish owners receive. Furthermore they all knew that when they > paid for them.. > People would turn whether HBO (and others) scrambled or not. Those of us who have had dishes for some time (I've had one for four years) long ago realized that there is nothing on HBO (or the other movie channels) that we really care to see, anyway. I would much prefer to rent a movie when I want to for $1 than pay HBO for all the repeats and other stuff they have. My feeling is to let them scramble. Who really cares??? They have a right to protect their investment. I realize that this may be no-no for a dish owner to say, but that's how many of us feel. > > > Did they think about how customers they had on > > CABLE might have discontinued service because of > > disgust with the greedy attitude of HBO? > > Greedy? Hmmm.. Just who is being greedy here? HBO is just trying > to get everyone who watches it to pay for it. Doesn't sound too > greedy to me. However, dish-owners who get upset because they > can't get HBO free anymore........ I agree with your statement completely. Many dish owners feel that since they have invested $1000 in a satellite dish then they are entitled to watch everything. They even use the argument that it was american taxpayers who paid to put up the satellite and therefore the american people should be able to watch anything that is up there. Happily, there are also many dish owners who do not agree to any of this crazy logic. Besides, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. Basically, If I have a dish and happen to see something up there, then I see it. If that program supplier doesn't want me to see it, he will scramble it. Fine. No problem. Most of the stuff will be eventually scrambled. I am not worried. What do I watch, you ask?? Well, I would say that I probably watched about three movies in the last two months, probably on Movie Channel (cause it's in stereo) - as opposed to renting about 10-12 movies in the same time frame for $1 each. (Special dollar nites). I use the dish to watch David Letterman @9:30 instead of staying up. Usually, most of the time, it stays parked on the ABC east coast feed. I used to park on the NASA feed when they were up. Sometimes I watch the Dallas station (which is not carried on cables here). I look at the Mexican stations occasionally. Most of the time I just scan looking for different things. I also get to see the PBS programs that aren't carried by our local affiliate. Sounds like I watch a lot of satellite TV. Not hardly. My total TV time is less than 4-5 hours a week including rented movies. And of course, these are only my opinions.
andre@nrcvax.UUCP (Andre Hut) (03/02/86)
Well, Showtime has started some scrambling tests, and I have noticed
that whenever they do this, a little black circle appears in the lower
right-hand corner. This is very annoying. Does anyone know what this
is, or what it is for?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ihnp4-\
sdcsvax-\ \
Andre' Hut sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!andre
hplabs--/ /
ucbvax!calma-/
Network Research Corporation
923 Executive Park Dr. Suite C
Salt Lake City, Utah 84117
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (03/08/86)
Scrambling was considered to affect 4 groups of dish owners. Hotel and Bar owners (who derive indirect revenue from sattelite programs) Rural owners (who cannot recieve these services any other way - no cable) Suburban and Urban owners (who have access to cable but use dishes to get "free cable"). Special interest owners (who wish to recieve services not carried by their local cable company) in this case, they really fit in the same catagory as the rural owners. Hotel and Bar owners should be liable reguardless of whether the signals are encoded or not, scrambling simply ensures that they will have to pay for the attractions. Ideally, they should subsidize the other groups (Rural especially). Rural owners should be able to get scramblers/codes for nominal fees. The assumtion is probably that they weren't necessarily pirating the service, just trying to get it the only way they could. There is no threat to cable companies in this case. The alternative would have been to force encryptors to provide cable service to anyone who wanted it. This is not really practical when "aunt Mable's farm" is 200 miles from the nearest cable company. In this case, the dish owner might even consider normal cable rates to be reasonable. Suburban/Urban dish owners gambled that the dishes would be amortized before scrambling occurred. Unless the cable companies choose to give a "distribution discount" to dish owners, it is likely that these dishes cannot be further amortized. The bright spot here is that if a single "standard decoder" is adopted, the dish owner can "shop around" to get the best price for "key codes" from a cable company. A dish owner in New York can get the codes from an operator in Denver Colorado and have it charged to his VISA card by phone. If the local company wants $15/month and Denver wants $5/month, a $200 decoder would be amortized in less than 2 years. A $1000 dish would take almost ten years. Of course if the same discounts apply to a number of services, the amortization would be much faster. The other bright spot is that programs that couldn't otherwise be shown (X rated, politically offensive,...) may be allowed because the encryption makes the signal inoffensive to anyone who has not specifically requested that program/service. Whether this is actually how things work out or not, it is worth considering before flaming at the insensitivity of congress and sattelite owners to ALL dish owners. I would be interested in hearing flames if the Rural/Special groups end up getting burned.
tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) (03/11/86)
... What is a line eater ...
Since I have recently subscribed to this group, this may have been
answered before, but...
A cable company charges each customer for a premium service (eg. HBO)
a fee; the provider (HBO) charges the cable company that same amount, but
only up to a certain number of subscribers (say 3,000) with the excess
being pure profit for the cable company. (These figures were accurate
when last I checked.) Now the question: When a dish owner subscribes
directly they pay the "full" amount regardless of how many dish owners
subscribe; Why can't there be a dish clearing house (a dish "cable"
company) that pays the fee requested (eg. 3,000 x $13 or whatever) but
charges each dish owner their FAIR SHARE plus a small profit. I think
the amounts HBO are charging dish owners is ludicrous and exhorbitant
($12.95 for just HBO) when they don't have ANY extra costs expended to
provide you that service!
References: from Electronic Engineering Times 3 March 1986 pg 11
HBO Hotline (800) HBO-DISH
The Black Box Solution (a how to build your own descrambler)
4014 Central Ave.
Hot Springs, Ark. 71913 (501)321-1845
-- Glenn Tenney
UUCP: {hplabs,glacier,lll-crg,ihnp4!ptsfa}!well!tenney
ARPA: well!tenney@LLL-CRG.ARPA Delphi and MCI Mail: TENNEY
As Alphonso Bodoya would say... (tnx boulton)
Disclaimers? DISCLAIMERS!? I don' gotta show you no stinking DISCLAIMERS!jimb@tekcbi.UUCP (Jim Boland) (03/12/86)
Mr Video claimed: >> HBO is currently not in stereo. >>They don't send it out in stereo from New York. Currently, only Movie Channel >>has stereo. >HBO is distributed in digital stereo. A direct result of the M/A Comm >Cypher IIencoding/decoding system. But, not all cable companies (mine >included) do not put up the stereo audio on the FM band. >One of the guys at our head-end put up HBO on the FM band, while it was still >mono. After the scrambling went 24 hours, he put in the spare stereo exciter >and we had stereo. But, the powers that be said that it had to be pulled, as >further study was needed. For no extra cost we had stereo. Oh Well!!! I knew that HBO intended to go digital stereo when they started scrambling. Therefore, I called them when they did and they said it was in the plans but they were not stereo as of yet. Occasionally they feed concerts in stereo for the cable systems, but that is on a separate feed with separate audio. When David Anthony of DataSpan said (on the net) that he had a Cypher decoder, I asked if it were in stereo and he said replied no. Then I saw your Mr. Video's posting that his cable company had it for a while and I said to myself, "Self, what gives?". So, once again, I called HBO and put the question to them again. The answer from them is "No. We are not in digital stereo yet. We have not fed it yet. We intend to but the date is unknown". I don't know what Mr. Video's cable company did. HBO 1-800-426-3474. In article <747@well.UUCP>, tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) writes: > > A cable company charges each customer for a premium service (eg. HBO) > a fee; the provider (HBO) charges the cable company that same amount, Nope. I don't know what the fee is now, but a few years ago it was appx. $3-$4 per customer depending on cable company. > but only up to a certain number of subscribers (say 3,000) with the excess > being pure profit for the cable company. (These figures were accurate > when last I checked.) Nope. As above, per customer. There may have been special "deals" as incentives for some operators, but that is not the general rule. > Now the question: When a dish owner subscribes > directly they pay the "full" amount regardless of how many dish owners > subscribe; That's right. They pay the same average going "retail" price. > Why can't there be a dish clearing house (a dish "cable" company) That's being discussed and planned. > I think > the amounts HBO are charging dish owners is ludicrous and exhorbitant > ($12.95 for just HBO) when they don't have ANY extra costs expended to > provide you that service! They have the costs of collecting and administering that fee. Perhaps $12.95 is a little high, but the charge should be higher than the wholesale price. Remember, part of the cable operators "high" price includes his collection price. From <1669@brl-smoke.ARPA> (Brint Cooper) >Heard on late-night, antenna-received TV: "And with every satellite TV >system ordered from BirdView, we'll give you a scrambler absolutely >free!" >I wonder if they really meant that? Sales are down. In order to bring them up, they gotta try something. Either raise the price of the system by about $350 (wholesale price of descrambler), or cut down your margins. or possibly a combination of both. It's legit. from <365@tikal.UUCP> (Roger Lanphere) >Referring to an article on pg. 11 of ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING TIMES, issue >371, March 3, 1986: > The BLACK BOX SOLUTION company claims it has cracked the MA/COMM Video- >cypher II technology for decrypting satellite video transmissions. > BLACK BOX representatives were recently at the conference of Society >for Private and Commercial Earth Stations (SPACE) selling manuals which >detailed how to descramble THE VIDEO PORTION ONLY for a price of $49.95. The details of this were posted to net.video a few months ago. And for free. There is no black magic to the video portion. They are using the same basic methods that ON-TV (Oak) and others have used for several years. There is only so much (analog) that you can do to the video. However, what good is video without audio??? >An estimated cost of building the >descrambler circuitry is approximately $90-$100 in components. They also >claim that their method of descrambling also allows other formats such >as the OAK and ORION formats currently used by X-rated pay TV services >and Canadian satellite broadcasts to be descrambled also. True. In fact, there is a surplus store in Portland that sells old Oak (On-TV) boxes for $10-$15 that can be modified to do that. > Please note however that while this method descrambles the video portion >of the picture, THE AUDIO IS STILL SCRAMBLED. BLACK BOX claims that by >late March they will have the audio solution worked out I doubt it. > BLACK BOX states: "The use of the BLACK BOX solution to decode scrambled >TV signals may be illegal. Let me paraphrase that for you. change the words "may be" to "IS". > Yes, I own a satellite dish and NO WAY will I purchase a videocypher II >box and then pay a cable company for monthly program service!!! I would >really like to see someone prove that I'm using an illegal decoder box As in the case of the rooftop HBO's and court decisions, they didn't have to prove it. Granted, It would be difficult to prove, but seeing as how there won't be any boxes which will have audio, there is no reason to go after you. Yep, I have a dish and I will get a videocyper II when the rest have started using it. Right now, I could care less about HBO/Cinemax. I much prefer the Movie Channel. These are only my opinions.
gnome@olivee.UUCP (Gary Traveis) (03/13/86)
> > Why should HBO care about sagging dish sales? Who do you > > think is paying indirectly for HBO's losses? I'll bet I'm paying > > more for HBO because of those lost revenues from satellite dishes. > I agree. HBO (and other programmers) should not care what happens to > dish sales as that is not the market they are interested in. They are > in the business of supplying programming for cable viewers. That programming > costs money and that money must come from somewhere. Owners of satellite > dishes do not possess any "rights" to view that programming without paying, > contrary to their belief and any laws which have been passed. However, I > doubt that you are paying more for HBO because of lost revenues. > And besides, HBO has publicly stated that they are not after the individual > dish owner. They are after the bars, taverns, hotels, and motels - the ones > who use one dish to feed many people without paying. > WRONG. True, programming does cost money, but you will find that the cost of HBO to customers has been steadily rising. This trend was well on its way long before the general public had access to the "inexpensive dish" technology. It's called "what the market will bear". Also wrong is the line that states that HBO is not after the individuals with dishes. HBO's standard policy is to use a firm that hires local geeks (for minimum wage) to drive around neighborhoods taking pictures of any antennas that look suspicious. How do I know this? Because I got the chance to see that pictorial list that they carry. If an antenna looks like one of the drawings on the list -- CLICK. The photos and addresses are forwarded to a discount trash-bin legal office that sends out hundreds of letters threatening criminal prosecution to those who don't settle-up, take down the antennas, and subscribe. Many HAMs in my area (myself included) have run into this problem because the mobile zombies can't tell the difference between a microwave dish for amateur use and a dish used to watch commercial broadcasts. > >Did they think about how people > > > might turn to home video rather than cable and > > > satellite programming? > > > > What people? You mean the people who paid $2000+ for a satellite > > dish knowing they would get HBO (and others) free? That avoids the question! As compared to one (1) satellite receiver store in this immediate area, there are no less than 9 videotape rental shops within a one mile radius around where I work (in Cupertino). Why pay HBO's extreme prices for random garbage on at wierd hours when you can watch what you want, when you want, for $1-$3 ? Yes, the reason why HBO is getting less subscribers is the same reason why tape rental places are doing so well. > They even use the argument that it was american taxpayers > who paid to put up the satellite and therefore the american people should be > able to watch anything that is up there. > Happily, there are also many dish owners who do not agree to any of this > crazy logic. >... > Basically, If I have a dish and happen to see something up there, then I > see it. If that program supplier doesn't want me to see it, he will > scramble it. Fine. No problem. Most of the stuff will be eventually > scrambled. I am not worried... Unfortunately, sat' movie companies (HBO in particular), and cellular telephone companies have the idea that (instead of scrambling) they can push (or buy) the lawmakers into making receiving equipment illegal. The signals that they claim as their own go through your property (and you) 24 hours a day and, like erecting a drive-in in your back yard, if they don't want you to watch, they should either scramble the signal or block your "view". Companies like HBO (or their thugs, I should say), would rather spend their money on lawyers instead of scramblng equipment. In the long run, they usually end up doing both. I personally don't care about HBO, most of their programming if crap. I DO care about idiot corporate fools trying to make the airwaves ILLEGAL to receive! Under fire are dishes (microwave), scanners (because of their ability to receive in the cellular telephone bands), and general coverage receivers (because they can pick up cordless phones). There are existing laws about reception for profit and disclosure or rebroadcast. These older laws are much less hysterical than the laws that are being pushed-for recently. Unfortunately, companies like HBO tend to be technologically lazy and legally topheavy. --->> Amateur Radio from DC to Blue light! --->> Gary (The usual disclaimers about employers and such...)
rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (03/13/86)
In article <747@well.UUCP> tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) writes: >... What is a line eater ... >Since I have recently subscribed to this group, this may have been >answered before, but... > >A cable company charges each customer for a premium service (eg. HBO) >a fee; the provider (HBO) charges the cable company that same amount, but >only up to a certain number of subscribers (say 3,000) with the excess >being pure profit for the cable company. (These figures were accurate >when last I checked.) Now the question: When a dish owner subscribes >directly they pay the "full" amount regardless of how many dish owners >subscribe; Why can't there be a dish clearing house (a dish "cable" >company) that pays the fee requested (eg. 3,000 x $13 or whatever) but >charges each dish owner their FAIR SHARE plus a small profit. I think >the amounts HBO are charging dish owners is ludicrous and exhorbitant >($12.95 for just HBO) when they don't have ANY extra costs expended to >provide you that service! This is actually a very good idea, considering that it actually costs MORE for HBO to process billings from each subscriber. Since all that is required is to have the monthly code change sent/phoned to each dish owner, there might be a good profit in a "dish code clearing house"! Actually, a cable company or two could actually start competing in national magazines for the lowest "dish code" prices :-) Seriously, it's a good idea!! Any cable operators like it?
john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore) (03/13/86)
In article <747@well.UUCP> tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) writes: >subscribe; Why can't there be a dish clearing house (a dish "cable" >company) that pays the fee requested (eg. 3,000 x $13 or whatever) but >charges each dish owner their FAIR SHARE plus a small profit. I think >the amounts HBO are charging dish owners is ludicrous and exhorbitant >($12.95 for just HBO) when they don't have ANY extra costs expended to >provide you that service! > >References: from Electronic Engineering Times 3 March 1986 pg 11 > HBO Hotline (800) HBO-DISH > The Black Box Solution (a how to build your own descrambler) Such things exist. Here in the Phoenix metropolitan area, Golden West Cablevision will sell you HBO for $8.00/month. It seems natural that such services will evolve. The real danger to those of us owning dishes is that the satellite providers will use different unscramblers. Then, the capital cost rather than the monthly charge will kill you eventually. I have read that the justice department is investigating the "scrambling consortium" for antitrust. This could cause them to use different unscramblers! > 4014 Central Ave. > Hot Springs, Ark. 71913 (501)321-1845 I heard that someone was showing a pirate descrambler at the recent Las Vegas show, but that all they were showing was a videotape of the result. Is this the group? I smell a scam. They could be doing one of the following: (1) Showing how to unscramble the video (easy anyway) but not how to do the audio (apparently very difficult). (2) Showing how to build an unscrambler but not how to get the keys (build your own Videocipher II). That would technically satisfy their claims but not be of any use. (3) Taking the money and running. (4) Showing you how to rip off HBO. Has anyone yet determined which of these is true? -- John Moore (NJ7E/XE1HDO) {decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!john {hao!noao|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!terak!anasazi!john terak!anasazi!john@SEISMO.CSS.GOV (602) 861-7607 (day or evening) 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Paradise Valley, AZ, 85253 (Home Address) The opinions expressed here are obviously not mine, so they must be someone else's.
brown@nicmad.UUCP (03/13/86)
In article <541@tekcbi.UUCP> jimb@tekcbi.UUCP (Jim Boland) writes: >Mr Video claimed: >>> HBO is currently not in stereo. >>>They don't send it out in stereo from New York. >>>Currently, only Movie Channel has stereo. > >>HBO is distributed in digital stereo. A direct result of the M/A Comm >>Cypher II encoding/decoding system. But, not all cable companies (mine >>included) put up the stereo audio on the FM band. > >>One of the guys at our head-end put up HBO on the FM band, while it was still >>mono. After the scrambling went 24 hours, he put in the spare stereo exciter >>and we had stereo. But, the powers that be said that it had to be pulled, as >>further study was needed. For no extra cost we had stereo. Oh Well!!! > >I knew that HBO intended to go digital stereo when they started scrambling. >Therefore, I called them when they did and they said it was in the plans but >they were not stereo as of yet. Occasionally they feed concerts in stereo >for the cable systems, but that is on a separate feed with separate audio. >When David Anthony of DataSpan said (on the net) that he had a Cypher decoder, >I asked if it were in stereo and he said replied no. Then I saw your Mr. >Video's posting that his cable company had it for a while and I said to >myself, "Self, what gives?". So, once again, I called HBO and put the question >to them again. The answer from them is "No. We are not in digital stereo yet. >We have not fed it yet. We intend to but the date is unknown". >I don't know what Mr. Video's cable company did. HBO 1-800-426-3474. I still claim it. Here is the reason why. About a week after HBO went full time scrambling, I tuned in HBO on the FM receiver. The first thing I found was that it changed frequency. I believe that was because of logistics. 90.5 and 90.9 were swapped, no big deal. Anyway, when I found HBO again, I sat and watched "Starman" in FULL stereo sound. I had already watched it in VHS Hi-Fi stereo, so I knew what it was like. Obviously "Starman" is not one of HBO's concert specials. A few days later I watched another movie in stereo. I do not know what it was, sorry. But, I have been taping and keeping "The Hitchhiker". That program was also in stereo, at least the music was. The lead-in music wasn't, but the program music was. I have the VHS Hi-Fi stereo tape to prove it. It wasn't one of these false stereo type of things. I know what our cable company has for equipment, as I know the engineer in charge of the head-end equipment. I just got the off phone with HBO Network Operations (1-212-512-1000) and she verified the fact that if the tape is stereo, it goes out in stereo. Also, she said that a release is going out to all affiliates on how to get the stereo audio to their customers. I knew my ears weren't fooling me. -- ihnp4------\ harvard-\ \ Mr. Video seismo!uwvax!nicmad!brown topaz-/ / decvax------/
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (03/14/86)
I haven't heard of very many cases of HBO (or other program suppliers) hiring people to drive around finding TVRO (satellite receiver) antennas. I have heard of cases where they were looking for MDS receivers, which are small and aimed horizontally at the transmitter site (normally on a tall building or hill). While a TVRO owner can legally own the equipment and watch a variety of legal material, it would appear that the vast majority of "oddball" MDS receivers you see around are aimed directly at the premium program transmitters and were installed solely for that purpose. Yes, there are some hams with similar looking gear. But (before the MDS services went off the air here in L.A.) I used to see hundreds of bizarre MDS receivers scattered all over the place as I drove around, and they were all aimed at the premium programming MDS transmitter in the Hollywood Hills. So no matter what else is said, it's pretty clear that the vast majority of those MDS receivers were people receiving the progamming without subscribing. --Lauren--
steve@bambi.UUCP (Steve Miller) (03/14/86)
> > So no matter what else is said, it's pretty clear that the vast majority > of those MDS receivers were people receiving the progamming without > subscribing. > I'm sure that's true, but the rights of those whose dishes weren't used for pirating programs are what's at stake. Back in the 70's, when CB radio was at its peak, many unethical CB hobbyists discovered that an amateur radio linear amplifier designed to operate on the 10 meter band would work on 11 meters as well. This made it easy for unscrupulous CB operators to run 1000 watt stations (the limit is five). Amateur operation on 10 meters at 1000 watts is legal. But... the law was changed to make it illegal to sell any kind of amplifier that could be used on 11 meters. Consequently, amplifiers that allowed 10 meter operation were withdrawn from the market. Whose interests were served? -Steve Miller WA4LDA ihnp4!bambi!steve
wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) (03/14/86)
I seem to be gathering this impression from this discussion -- that there will be a single "code word", to be changed each month, which is to be punched into everybody's home top-of-set descrambler to decode HBO. If this is true, I can't see how this will ever be workable. There is now a problem with BBS's and other info sources (bathroom walls, etc.) contining charge card numbers and calling-card numbers, which are used fraudulently by some people. If there is one nation-wide "special code number" each month for HBO, I predict confidently that, within 4 hours of its being given out to the first paying customer, that code number will be posted on BBS's, college and office bulletin boards, scribbled on scraps of paper passed among co-workers and friends and neighbors, and relayed via phone calls all over the nation and to any other areas the satellite footprint reaches. Surely there must be more to the descrambling than just expecting everyone to honestly pay each month for getting this code-word? Will
DE@GODZILLA.SCH.SYMBOLICS.COM (Doug Evans) (03/15/86)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 86 10:07:46 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
I seem to be gathering this impression from this discussion -- that there
will be a single "code word", to be changed each month, which is to be
punched into everybody's home top-of-set descrambler to decode HBO. If this
is true, I can't see how this will ever be workable. There is now a problem
with BBS's and other info sources (bathroom walls, etc.) contining
charge card numbers and calling-card numbers, which are used fraudulently
by some people. If there is one nation-wide "special code number" each month
for HBO, I predict confidently that, within 4 hours of its being given out
to the first paying customer, that code number will be posted on BBS's,
college and office bulletin boards, scribbled on scraps of paper passed
among co-workers and friends and neighbors, and relayed via phone calls all
over the nation and to any other areas the satellite footprint reaches.
Surely there must be more to the descrambling than just expecting
everyone to honestly pay each month for getting this code-word?
Will
No, no, no! - None of the above stuff will ever happen. This is both
simpler and more high-tech at the same time. HBO doesn't require that
you do anything at all other than pay your bill and give them some info
on your box. There is almost no difference between what HBO is doing
and what your local cable company does with premium channels.
The M/A Com boxes are all addressable, just like your cable boxes. When
you have paid HBO and given them you box serial number, they can then
program their master computer to send a secret code to your own box (via
their satellite link) and enable it. If you don't pay your bill, they
disable your box from their computer.
Encoding keys are not changed once a month - they are changed every
couple of minutes. That's part of the digital scrambling process for
the audio. The video scrambling is the same simple stuff as the cable
companies use right now.
A few people have already broken the scrambling for the video portion of
the signal. The real challenge will be to decode the audio.wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) (03/15/86)
Thanks for the response! That sounds *much* more sensible than the methodology that those other postings implied. Does this mean that everybody who watches HBO, either from off their local cable system or off their own backyard dish, has an addressable descrambler box in their home, and, for the ones on the cable, the enabling signal comes down the cable line along with HBO's signal? That is the only way I can envision that the previously-discussed concept (of a home dish owner in Outer Nowhere, Montana, calling a cable system somewhere in, say, Alabama, to get a good rate for that month's worth of HBO) would work -- that that cable system sends off his decoder serial number, along with the serial numbers of the decoder boxes of its hardwired subscribers, to HBO HQ each month, so they are all entered into the HBO "enabling" database. If the cable system had only one descrambler at its head end, it wouldn't be interested in re-selling the authorization to receive HBO to other people not on its own wires, would it? Right now, are there then two types of cable systems operating -- one with a single head-end descrambler, and others with in-home descramblers? And this second type are the ones who are selling authorizations over the phone via chargecard? What keeps people from paying the going rate for one descrambler box, but then feeding that recovered and now "normal" signal into local, "unofficial" cable, MATV, or other distribution systems? That way, some hundreds or more TVs could get HBO for the cost of one. The only way I can see HBO catching this is physically investigating and looking at the installation. Will ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin
jimb@tekcbi.UUCP (Jim Boland) (03/15/86)
In article <728@olivee.UUCP>, gnome@olivee.UUCP (Gary Traveis) writes: > > Also wrong is the line that states that HBO is not after the individuals > with dishes. HBO's standard policy is to use a firm that hires local > geeks (for minimum wage) to drive around neighborhoods taking pictures > of any antennas that look suspicious. How do I know this? Because > I got the chance to see that pictorial list that they carry. If > an antenna looks like one of the drawings on the list -- CLICK. > The photos and addresses are forwarded to a discount trash-bin > legal office that sends out hundreds of letters threatening criminal > prosecution to those who don't settle-up, take down the antennas, and > subscribe. It is true that this task is performed. I can't comment on the type of people they employ but in this town they did the picture taking by helicopter. They got a good lawyer, took the cases to court and "basically" won. All rooftop antennas were to come down. Microwave dish Distributors were ordered to pay fines. This was done not by HBO but by the local outfit who had the franchise to distribute the programming. Notice that this is for microwave fed programming from a local station on 2GHz. This did not apply to satellite signals as we have been discussing. > Many HAMs in my area (myself included) have run into this > problem because the mobile zombies can't tell the difference between > a microwave dish for amateur use and a dish used to watch commercial > broadcasts. You are absolutely correct. The problem then stems from the point of proving that you are "hammin'" and not "stealin'". However, those with a ham license and demonstrating that they had the proper equipment for ham tv were not pursued.
seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (03/18/86)
In article <860314131814.6.DE@SHAPIERON.SCH.Symbolics.COM> DE@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA writes: >No, no, no! - None of the above stuff will ever happen. This is both >simpler and more high-tech at the same time. HBO doesn't require that >you do anything at all other than pay your bill and give them some info >on your box. There is almost no difference between what HBO is doing >and what your local cable company does with premium channels. > >The M/A Com boxes are all addressable, just like your cable boxes. When >you have paid HBO and given them you box serial number, they can then >program their master computer to send a secret code to your own box (via >their satellite link) and enable it. If you don't pay your bill, they >disable your box from their computer. If this is in fact what they're doing, what's the big stink? Just modify the box to ignore HBO's enable/disable feature. Snoopy tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy HBO's legal-eagles will please note that I do not own a satellite dish, and have no plans to buy one.
die@frog.UUCP (Dave Emery, Software) (03/19/86)
--
David I. Emery Charles River Data Systems
983 Concord St., Framingham, MA 01701 (617) 626-1102 uucp: decvax!frog!dieuhclem@trsvax (03/19/86)
<That's not a screwdriver, it's a torque-inducing, shear-initiator!> In case you hadn't noticed, the FCC (you know, those guys) removed the UHF 83 channel rule for TV makers. The last channel you are supposed to put on the dial is UHF 69 now. The UHF 69-83... range now contains cellular phone traffic. If the legislation you speak of goes into effect, you will be breaking the law if you punch in a channel number above UHF 69 on your TV set, as that is no longer a civilian band. Next thing twe know they will require us to buy new tuners that stop at UHF 69! For those of us in the border states, there are a few Mexican stations that are above UHF 69. I was visiting friends in south Texas and they were watching the bullfights on Mexican TV, some station right around UHF 80. (ASPCA Note: I do not watch bullfights or bet on them.) Remember when Wayne Green wanted to turn the UHF band above 40 over to the Hammies? Now we go the other way! (I think the Hammies would make better use of it.) "Now children, do not play around or stand near the power pole, or you might inductively receive cable signals and have to go to jail under Texas law." <The above opinions are those of me and possibly my employer. I know they are fighting for the constitutional right for citizens to carry and bear frequency scanners, as well as their right to sell them.> "Thank you, Uh Clem." Frank Durda IV @ <trsvax!uhclem>
Lippman@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (03/20/86)
It is not so simple as that. The sound is encrypted using the DES standard, and you cannot ignore a turn-off. You need the current key to hear the broadcast. The video is "soft encoded", meaning that sync is suppressed and so on, but the time base is not altered. That is like cable scrambling and is not hardto beat. It is intentionally not hard to beat because broadcasters think their material is sufficiently devalued without sound; they do not have to introduce pitcure scrambling and potential degradation of the signal to induce you to buy the service. I am afraid that the depressing news for those who expect to use their satellite dish for aunauthorized reception of either movies or network communications is that you will not be able to do so unless a moratorium on scrambling is legislated. Simply home-brew electronics will not work here. These people are not idiots, you know. There is worse news for Canadians, since mnay cable providers do not have the license to distribute the movie in Canada. Therefore the boxes might not even be for sale there fora while. It could be worse: In Australia, they are adopting the ecnryption system developed by Scientific Atlanta, which "hard encrypts" the video as well. You can spend many long evenings figuring out how to beat this and failing badly. --Andy
MRC%PANDA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA (Mark Crispin) (03/20/86)
So then, what stops a clever group of conspirators from buying every
possible service for one box, then modifying lots of other boxes so they
have the same serial number? Unlike cable boxes, you'll own the satellite
box so you'll never have to worry about giving it back.
Alternatively, a box could be modified to be promiscuous, although I
can think of lots of ways a broadcaster can screw promiscuous boxes!
-------john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore) (03/22/86)
>You are absolutely correct. The problem then stems from the point of proving >that you are "hammin'" and not "stealin'". However, those with a ham license >and demonstrating that they had the proper equipment for ham tv were not >pursued. Wrong! THEY have to PROVE that you were stealin and not hammin! -- John Moore (NJ7E/XE1HDO) {decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!john {hao!noao|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!terak!anasazi!john terak!anasazi!john@SEISMO.CSS.GOV (602) 861-7607 (day or evening) 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Paradise Valley, AZ, 85253 (Home Address) The opinions expressed here are obviously not mine, so they must be someone else's.
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (03/24/86)
In article <669@anasazi.UUCP>, john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore) writes: > >You are absolutely correct. The problem then stems from the point of proving > >that you are "hammin'" and not "stealin'". However, those with a ham license > >and demonstrating that they had the proper equipment for ham tv were not > >pursued. > Wrong! THEY have to PROVE that you were stealin and not hammin! The method of proving unauthorized reception of MDS services is rather easy: using a directional antenna aimed at the "suspect antenna", the RF energy radiating from its local oscillator can be easily measured. If the difference between the measured frequency and the MDS broadcast frequency corresponds to an IF frequency of a television channel (usually channel 6 or 7), this is presumptive evidence (along with antenna azimuth) of unauthorized reception, and is probable cause to seek a search warrant for criminal prosecution. One "nice" thing about criminal prosecution (as opposed to a civil law suit) in these matters is that the MDS company incurs no legal expenses; the county and state pay for the criminal prosecution. So, I suppose that people bent upon unauthorized MDS reception can solve this "detection problem" by means of a double conversion system which effectively renders it impossible to determine the receiving frequency from the first oscillator radiation. :-) :-) :-) ==> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <== ==> UUCP {decvax|dual|rocksanne|rocksvax|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <== ==> VOICE 716/688-1231 {rice|shell}!baylor!/ <== ==> FAX 716/741-9635 {G1, G2, G3 modes} duke!ethos!/ <== ==> seismo!/ <== ==> "Have you hugged your cat today?" ihnp4!/ <==
john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore) (03/27/86)
In article <12192278397.8.MRC@PANDA> MRC%PANDA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA (Mark Crispin) writes: [original article posted only to net.video - discussion of MACOM VIDEOCYPHER II] [Since the VC-II is a new crypto system which will no doubt be subject to a lot of attacks in the real, non-classified world, it seems that it might be a suitable topic for discussion in net.crypt also.] > So then, what stops a clever group of conspirators from buying every >possible service for one box, then modifying lots of other boxes so they >have the same serial number? Unlike cable boxes, you'll own the satellite >box so you'll never have to worry about giving it back. I have seen lots of similar such speculations. My question: does anyone know how key management is done in the VC-II? I would propose the following scheme, which if it was in fact implemented, should be secure. The question is: is this scheme what was used? Is it really reasonably secure? Scheme: Each box has a unique DES master key which is known on the database of the service provider. When a service is enabled (or re-enabled monthly?), a working key is sent to the box (via Vertical Blanking Interval) and is encrypted using the master key. The working key is used to decrypt the digitized autio. It seems to me that this scheme is commercially secure assuming the following additional measures: (1) The method of selection of a master key is randomized so that knowing the master key of one device does not aid in guessing the master key of another one. (2) [not very critical] The working keys are changed regularly, and are different for each service. This is likely to be the case since desubscribing should cancel one's service. (3) [not very critical] The decrypting device is physically encapsulated so that it is difficult or impossible to simply xerox the master key from one device and proliferate it to many others. An alternative scheme which may have been used (and would be pretty stupid) is that all services use the same, permanent key, and the over-the-air transmissions simply enable/disable reception. I would appreciate comments or speculation on all this. Finally this seems a case for more than the usual USENET disclaimers, so: Please don't respond with anything that is a trade secret or would otherwise compromise the net integrity. Thanks. -- John Moore (NJ7E/XE1HDO) {decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!john {hao!noao|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!terak!anasazi!john terak!anasazi!john@SEISMO.CSS.GOV (602) 861-7607 (day or evening) 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Paradise Valley, AZ, 85253 (Home Address) The opinions expressed here are obviously not mine, so they must be someone else's.
john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore) (03/28/86)
In article <907@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: >In article <669@anasazi.UUCP>, john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore) writes: >> >You are absolutely correct. The problem then stems from the point of proving >> >that you are "hammin'" and not "stealin'". However, those with a ham license >> >and demonstrating that they had the proper equipment for ham tv were not >> >pursued. >> Wrong! THEY have to PROVE that you were stealin and not hammin! > > The method of proving unauthorized reception of MDS services is rather >easy: using a directional antenna aimed at the "suspect antenna", the RF energy >radiating from its local oscillator can be easily measured. If the difference >between the measured frequency and the MDS broadcast frequency corresponds to >an IF frequency of a television channel (usually channel 6 or 7), this is >presumptive evidence (along with antenna azimuth) of unauthorized reception, >and is probable cause to seek a search warrant for criminal prosecution. Were I attempting to steal MDS and such an argument was issued, I would point out that I was listening to amateur TV on [LO + IF] (2300 Mhz ham band) rather than MDS on [LO - IF]. So much for presumptive evidence. The prosecution would have to show that that is now IMPOSSIBLE. I am only trying here to point out that there is a significant difference between information which hints at a violation and EVIDENCE which PROVES a violation. A better method would be to use a directional antenna on 40 Mhz in an attempt to pull out the TV IF, or to try to find the baseband video. Then you could show that the actual program content was being watched. By the way, consider that it really is possible for a ham to be unjustly prosecuted if your method of evidence were accepted. I have had friends who were threatened by the local MDS operator for having 450 Mhz corner reflectors pointed at the same mountain as the MDS site! Those people care nothing for the rights of other users of the spectrum in their attempts to stop piracy. As far as I am concerned, I have no sympathy for someone who uses the public airways to transmit UNENCRYPTED data, and then uses the public police agencies to keep people from watching it! If they want privacy, let them encrypt. (I realize that there is no legal validity to that viewpoint). -- John Moore (NJ7E/XE1HDO) {decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!john {hao!noao|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!terak!anasazi!john terak!anasazi!john@SEISMO.CSS.GOV (602) 861-7607 (day or evening) 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Paradise Valley, AZ, 85253 (Home Address) The opinions expressed here are obviously not mine, so they must be someone else's.