Video Device Competition; Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices; Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment, 27264-27271 [2010-11388]
Download as PDF
27264
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a,
545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561,
571, 572, 573.
4. Amend § 76.640 by revising
paragraph (b)(4)(ii) to read as follows:
§ 76.640 Support for unidirectional digital
cable products on digital cable systems.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Include both:
(A) A DVI or HDMI interface and
(B) An IEEE 1394, Ethernet, or USB
3.0 interface, or WiFi connectivity on all
high definition set-top boxes acquired
by a cable operator for distribution to
customers. Effective [Date to be
determined in the final rule], this
interface must, at a minimum:
(1) Allow another device to transmit
remote control commands via the same
interface and
(2) Deliver video in an industry
standard format.
*
*
*
*
*
5. Amend § 76.1204 by revising
paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
§ 76.1204 Availability of equipment
performing conditional access or security
functions.
(a) * * *
(2) The foregoing requirement shall
not apply
(i) With respect to unidirectional settop boxes without recording
functionality; or
(ii) To a multichannel video
programming distributor that supports
the active use by subscribers of
navigation devices that:
(A) Operate throughout the
continental United States, and
(B) Are available from retail outlets
and other vendors throughout the
United States that are not affiliated with
the owner or operator of the
multichannel video programming
system.
*
*
*
*
*
6. Revise § 76.1205 to read as follows:
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 76.1205
CableCARD support.
(a) Technical information concerning
interface parameters that are needed to
permit navigation devices to operate
with multichannel video programming
systems shall be provided by the system
operator upon request in a timely
manner.
(b) A multichannel video
programming provider that is subject to
the requirements of § 76.1204(a)(1)
must:
(1) Include the charge for the
CableCARD as a separate line item in
the subscriber’s bill;
(2) Provide the means to allow
subscribers to self-install the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:05 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
CableCARD if the MVPD allows its
subscribers to self-install operatorleased set-top boxes;
(3) Provide a multi-stream CableCARD
to any subscriber who requests one; and
(4) With respect to professional
installations, ensure that the technician
arrives with no fewer than the number
of CableCARDS requested by the
customer.
[FR Doc. 2010–11387 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket No. 10–91; CS Docket No. 97–
80; PP Docket No. 00–67; FCC 10–60]
Video Device Competition;
Implementation of Section 304 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996:
Commercial Availability of Navigation
Devices; Compatibility Between Cable
Systems and Consumer Electronics
Equipment
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
SUMMARY: In this document, the
Commission seeks comment on ways to
unleash competition in the retail market
for smart set-top video devices that are
compatible with all multichannel video
programming distributor (‘‘MVPD’’)
services. The goal of this proceeding is
to better accomplish the intent of
Congress as set forth in section 629 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended. In particular, we wish to
explore the potential for allowing any
electronics manufacturer to offer smart
video devices at retail that can be used
with the services of any MVPD and
without the need to coordinate or
negotiate with MVPDs. We believe that
this could foster a competitive retail
market in smart video devices to spur
investment and innovation, increase
consumer choice, allow unfettered
innovation in MVPD delivery platforms,
and encourage wider broadband use and
adoption.
DATES: Comments for this proceeding
are due on or before July 13, 2010; reply
comments are due on or before August
12, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by MB Docket No. 10–91; CS
Docket No. 97–80; and PP Docket No.
00–67, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact
the FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information on this
proceeding, contact Brendan Murray,
Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov, of the Media
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–2120
or Alison Neplokh,
Alison.Neplokh@fcc.gov, of the Media
Bureau, Engineering Division, (202)
418–1083.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Inquiry (NOI), FCC 10–60, adopted and
released on April 21, 2010. The full text
of this document is available for public
inspection and copying during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY–
A257, Washington, DC 20554. These
documents will also be available via
ECFS (https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/).
(Documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/
or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text
may be purchased from the
Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th
Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554. To request this
document in accessible formats
(computer diskettes, large print, audio
recording, and Braille), send an e-mail
to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
Summary of the Notice of Inquiry
I. Introduction
1. In this Notice of Inquiry, the
Commission seeks comment on specific
steps we can take to unleash
competition in the retail market for
smart, set-top video devices (‘‘smart
video devices’’) that are compatible with
all multichannel video programming
distributor (‘‘MVPD’’) services. Our goal
in this proceeding is to better effectuate
the intent of Congress as set forth in
section 629 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended. In particular, we
wish to explore the potential for
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
allowing any electronics manufacturer
to offer smart video devices at retail that
can be used with the services of any
MVPD and without the need to
coordinate or negotiate with MVPDs.
We believe that this could foster a
competitive retail market in smart video
devices to spur investment and
innovation, increase consumer choice,
allow unfettered innovation in MVPD
delivery platforms, and encourage wider
broadband use and adoption.
2. More specifically, we introduce the
concept of an adapter that could act
either as a small ‘‘set-back’’ device for
connection to a single smart video
device or as a gateway allowing all
consumer electronics devices in the
home to access multichannel video
programming services. Unlike the
existing cable-centric CableCARD
technology, this adapter could make
possible the development and marketing
of smart video devices that attach to any
MVPD service anywhere in the United
States, which could greatly enhance the
incentives for manufacturers to enter the
retail market. As conceived, the adapter
would communicate with the MVPD
service, performing the tuning and
security decryption functions that may
be specific to a particular MVPD; the
smart video device would perform
navigation functions, including
presentation of programming guides and
search functionality. The Commission
seeks comment on this concept. We also
invite any alternative proposals that
would achieve the same objective of
eliminating barriers to entry in the retail
market for smart video devices that are
compatible with all MVPD services.
3. The Commission envisions that the
proposal adopted in this proceeding
would be a successor technology to
CableCARD. We predict that smart
video devices built to new standards
that would be adopted through this
proceeding would eventually replace
CableCARD devices on retail shelves.
Accordingly, in this Notice of Inquiry
the Commission also seeks comment on
the future of the CableCARD regime. We
are separately releasing a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking to address a
number of CableCARD implementation
issues pending the completion of a
successor regime.
II. Background
4. In the Telecommunications Act of
1996, Congress added section 629 to the
Communications Act. Section 629
directed the Commission to adopt
regulations to ensure the commercial
availability of navigation devices used
by consumers to access services from
MVPDs. Section 629 covers ‘‘equipment
used by consumers to access
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:05 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
multichannel video programming and
other services offered over multichannel
video programming systems.’’ In
enacting the section, Congress pointed
to the vigorous retail market for
customer premises equipment (‘‘CPE’’)
used with the telephone network and
sought to create a similarly vigorous
market for devices used with MVPD
services.
5. Congress was prescient in enacting
section 629 in 1996. In analog cable
systems, which were common
throughout the 1990s, most consumers
could connect their ‘‘cable ready’’ video
cassette recorders and television sets
directly to a cable operator’s system
without the need for any other
equipment. During that time, many
people became accustomed to and
appreciated the convenience of the
‘‘plug and play’’ aspect of connecting a
coaxial cable from the wall directly into
a television set to receive their video
programming service. But this analog
‘‘plug and play’’ technology was unable
to support advancements in video
delivery technology such as digital
cable, bidirectional video services such
as pay-per-view, and the emergence of
competitive services from Direct
Broadcast Satellite (‘‘DBS’’) providers,
which were widely available by 2000.
These new developments required the
use of more advanced encryption and
encoding techniques and bidirectional
communication, among other functions,
and the MVPDs built this capability into
proprietary set-top boxes.
6. The Commission has adopted
regulations in response to the statutory
mandate in section 629 to ensure retail
competition in the ‘‘navigation device’’
market. Those regulations have enabled
competitors such as TiVo and Moxi to
enter the market. However, the
Commission’s rules as they currently
exist have yet to realize Congress’
charge to develop a fully competitive
retail market.
7. The Commission adopted its first
Report and Order, 63 FR 38089, to
implement section 629 in 1998. The
Report and Order required MVPDs to
make available a conditional access
element separate from the basic
navigation device, in order to permit
unaffiliated manufacturers and retailers
to manufacture and market navigation
devices while allowing MVPDs to retain
control over their system security. The
technical details of this conditional
access element were to be worked out in
industry negotiations. In 2003, the
Commission adopted standards on
which the National Cable and
Telecommunications Association and
the Consumer Electronics Association
had agreed in a Memorandum of
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27265
Understanding (‘‘MOU’’), with certain
modifications. The MOU prescribed the
technical standards for ‘‘CableCARD’’
compatibility. The CableCARD is a
security device provided by an MVPD,
which can be inserted into a set-top box
or television set bought by a consumer
in the retail market and enable the
consumer’s television to display MVPD
encrypted video programming. To
ensure adequate support by MVPDs for
CableCARDs, the Commission
prohibited MVPDs from integrating the
security function into set-top boxes they
lease to consumers, thus forcing MVPDs
to rely on CableCARDs as well. This
‘‘integration ban’’ was initially set to go
into effect on January 1, 2005, but that
date was later extended to July 1, 2007.
8. The Commission’s rules require
cable operators to support only one-way
plug-and-play capability for retail
CableCARD devices. This largely
reflects the absence of a proven market
for two-way services when negotiations
began, and a desire within the industry
to achieve consensus on how to assure
access to the most basic services first
and not await the conclusion of
negotiations regarding access to new
services that might be introduced later.
Accordingly, the Commission’s rules do
not require cable operators to provide
access for retail devices to two-way
services such as interactive program
guides, pay-per-view, or video-ondemand services, which were nascent
services in 2003 and would have
required complex and lengthy technical
consideration. For that reason among
others, retail CableCARD devices have
not been able to offer all of the cable
services available to subscribers who
lease their set-top boxes from the cable
operator. This is partially responsible
for the failure of the CableCARD
solution to create a strong retail market
for navigation devices.
9. Furthermore, although the
CableCARD rules nominally apply to all
MVPDs, the Commission exempted
MVPDs that operate throughout the
United States and offer devices for retail
sale through unaffiliated vendors. In
practice, this means that DBS operators
are not subject to these rules. More
recent entrant AT&T does not provide
CableCARD devices, and Verizon
supports CableCARDs to a limited
extent, but not for its advanced IP
services. The Commission also has
given numerous integration ban waivers
to cable operators who have
demonstrated good cause for waiver,
such as cable operators in financial
distress and cable operators who have
upgraded their systems to all-digital.
While numerous, these integration ban
waivers involve a de minimis number of
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27266
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
cable subscribers nationwide. The
Commission also started granting
waivers for low-cost, limited capability
set-top boxes and, although these
waivers will result in more than a de
minimis number of subscribers
receiving these boxes, these boxes are
able to access only one-way services and
provide a substantial public interest
benefit by significantly reducing costs to
consumers for these low-end services.
10. Unfortunately, the Commission’s
efforts to date have not led to a robustly
competitive retail market for navigation
devices that connect to subscription
video services. Most cable subscribers
continue to use the traditional set-top
boxes leased from their cable operator.
Although following adoption of the
CableCARD rules some television
manufacturers sold unidirectional
digital cable-ready products (‘‘UDCPs’’),
most manufactures have abandoned the
technology. Indeed, since July 1, 2007,
cable operators have deployed only
456,000 CableCARDs for installation in
retail devices, compared with their
deployment of more than 17.7 million
leased devices pre-equipped with
CableCARDs since the integration ban
went into effect. Furthermore, while 605
UDCP models have been certified or
verified for use with CableCARDs, only
37 of those certifications have occurred
since the integration ban took effect in
July 2007. This indicates that, with the
exceptions of TiVo, Moxi, and
CableCARD-equipped home theater
computers, retail device manufacturers
have abandoned CableCARD technology
before any substantial benefits of the
integration ban could be realized.
11. The Commission anticipated that
the parties to the MOU would negotiate
a further agreement to achieve two-way
compatibility, using either a softwarebased or hardware-based solution.
When the Commission realized in June
2007 that negotiations were not leading
to an agreement for two-way
compatibility between consumer
electronics devices and cable systems, it
released a Third Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 72 FR 40818,
seeking comment on competing
proposals for two-way compatibility and
other related issues. In the wake of this
Third Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, the six largest cable
operators and a number of consumer
electronics manufacturers negotiated an
agreement for bidirectional
compatibility that continues to rely and
build on CableCARDs by using a
middleware-based solution called
‘‘tru2way.’’
12. We are not convinced that the
tru2way solution will assure the
development of a commercial retail
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:05 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
market as directed by Congress. As an
alternative, we seek to explore the
potential for fulfilling this statutory
directive by providing consumer
electronics manufacturers with the
ability to build smart video navigation
devices that can access MVPD content
regardless of the delivery technology the
provider employs and to ensure that
necessary licensing agreements do not
contain contractual terms that limit the
functionality of the devices. Although
tru2way is designed to be a two-way
solution for traditional cable operators,
it requires manufacturers to sign a
license agreement that contains
limitations that may hinder innovation.
For example, the agreement limits a
device’s ability to integrate video from
multiple sources into a consistent
viewing experience by limiting the
presentation and content of a tru2way
device’s graphical user interface. This
could prevent a tru2way device from
searching a consumer’s computer, DVR,
Netflix account, and cable-operatorprovided video on demand offerings for
a particular film or for films that include
the consumer’s favorite actor.
Furthermore, tru2way is an unworkable
solution for DBS and other non-cable
providers. Even service from a cable
provider like Verizon, which provides
most of its video using the same QAM
delivery technology as traditional cable
operators, but uses Internet Protocol
(‘‘IP’’) for interactive functions such as
video-on-demand, currently is not
compatible with tru2way. Finally, the
fact that the DBS providers are the
second and third largest MVPDs,
continue to gain market share, and yet
are not subject to the integration ban
also may be impeding the development
of a vibrant retail market by artificially
limiting the market for competitive
retail devices. Despite the importance of
being able to expand the retail market to
reach the DBS providers’ networks,
most consumer electronics
manufacturers acknowledge that an
attempt to establish standards for
navigation devices that would work
with each of the different delivery
technologies without some
intermediation would be impractical
and prohibitively expensive.
13. The approaches considered to date
have a number of inherent limitations.
Both the one-way CableCARD and
tru2way approaches focus on television
sets and digital video recorders (‘‘DVRs’’)
as the initial consumer device, with that
device housing security (through the
CableCARD), tuning, and navigation
functions. Yet delivery platforms
continue to evolve at a rapid pace. As
these delivery platforms evolve,
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
consumers may need to upgrade or
replace their devices to maintain
compatibility with those delivery
platforms, even if the device is still
physically sound. It is impractical to
expect consumers to spend hundreds of
dollars to replace their television sets or
set-top boxes to accommodate each
delivery innovation. A subscriber can
avoid that risk by renting an HD set-top
box from a cable operator for an average
cost of $8.22 per month. This disparity
can be expected to perpetuate reliance
on cable operators’ set-top leasing
model and undermine development of a
vigorous retail market in navigation
devices even if tru2way is successfully
deployed.
14. On December 3, 2009, the
Commission’s Omnibus Broadband
Initiative (‘‘OBI’’) released a Public
Notice (‘‘NBP PN #27’’) seeking
comment on four issues related to the
ability of manufacturers to compete and
innovate in the video device market.
Specifically, the Public Notice sought
comment on (i) the technological and
market-based limitations that prevent
retail devices from accessing all types of
content; (ii) whether a retail market for
network-agnostic video devices could
spur broadband use and adoption and
achieve the goals of section 629; (iii)
whether the home broadband service
model could be adapted to provide for
audio-visual device connectivity; and
(iv) what obstacles may hinder
convergence of internet and MVPDprovided video. Commenters generally
agreed that the technological limitations
that prevent devices from accessing all
types of content can be traced to the
different conditional access schemes,
delivery technologies, and platforms
that MVPDs use. Commenters expressed
some disagreement about whether
network-agnostic video devices would
spur broadband use and adoption, but
generally agreed that true network
agnosticism is a laudable goal for
navigation devices. Commenters also
generally agreed that the home
broadband service model could be
adapted to provide for audio-visual
device connectivity, but some disagreed
about the specific methods that should
be used for such connectivity. Finally,
commenters generally agreed that the
obstacles that hinder convergence of
Internet and MVPD-provided video are
divergent delivery technologies and
content protection methods. Certain
commenters also cited business
practices that deter entry into the
market. NCTA recently filed a letter
expressing its members’ commitment to
a set of principles largely supportive of
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
our objectives in launching this
proceeding.
III. Discussion
15. In this Notice of Inquiry, we seek
comment on ways to achieve the
objective that Congress established
nearly fifteen years ago. While MVPD
services have become far more robust in
the intervening years, for the most part
the consumer experience with respect to
the equipment that is required to access
those services has not. Consumers have
shown limited interest in purchasing
retail devices that can access MVPD
services under our existing rules, and
we believe that two fundamental defects
in the current regime account for this
reluctance. First, with few exceptions
retail navigation devices are unable to
provide functionality beyond that
available in devices that subscribers can
lease from their providers and often are
unable to access many of the MVPD
services that leased set-top devices are
able to access. Second, as a general
matter a retail navigation device
purchased for use with one MVPD’s
services cannot be used with the
services of a competing MVPD. We seek
comment on these premises, and we
invite commenters to offer other
explanations for the failure of a retail
market for navigation devices to emerge.
16. Assuming that these premises are
in the main correct, we propose a
solution that could address these two
fundamental problems and seek
comment on them. We believe that the
concept discussed below could give
device manufacturers the ability to
develop ‘‘smart’’ products that can
access any service that an MVPD
provides without the need to enter into
restrictive license agreements with
MVPDs. The concept also could give
device manufacturers the ability to
develop smart video devices that can
access MVPD programming regardless of
the delivery technology that the MVPD
uses. Accordingly, we introduce and
seek comment on a model that would
require MVPDs to provide a small, lowcost adapter that would connect to
proprietary MVPD networks and would
provide a common interface for
connection to televisions, DVRs, and
other smart video devices, as described
below. This adapter, a further
development of the concept of the
‘‘gateway device’’ recommended in
Chapter 4 of the National Broadband
Plan, would perform the conditional
access functions as well as tuning,
reception, and upstream communication
as directed by the smart video device.
The adapter and the smart video device
would communicate with each other
using a standard interface, but each
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:05 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
adapter would be system-specific to a
particular MVPD in order to
communicate with its network.
Innovations in a MVPDs’ delivery
technology might require substitution of
a new adapter but would not require the
consumer to replace her smart video
device or other in-home equipment.
While the Commission seeks comment
on this concept, we also encourage
commenters to present other proposals
that would remove barriers to the
establishment of a retail market for
smart video devices compatible with all
MVPD services. If commenters disagree
that the root problems involve limits on
device functionality and portability
across MVPDs, we invite them to
identify what they believe are the
obstacles to a competitive retail market
in navigation devices and to propose
solutions.
17. The AllVid Concept. Ideally, the
Commission’s all video (‘‘AllVid’’)
solution would work for all MVPDs and
lead to a nationwide interoperability
standard, much as Ethernet and the
IEEE 802.11 standards have led to
nationwide interoperability for
customer data networks while allowing
broadband service providers to deploy
differing proprietary network
technologies. The AllVid solution
would be designed to accommodate any
delivery technology that an MVPD
chooses to use and allow MVPDs to
continue unfettered innovation in video
delivery, because the MVPD-provided
AllVid adapter, rather than the
consumer-owned smart video device,
would be responsible for all
communication with the MVPD. At the
same time, it would allow consumer
electronics manufacturers to design to a
stable interface and to integrate multiple
functions within a retail device. This
approach would provide the necessary
flexibility for consumer electronics
manufacturers to develop new
technologies, including combining
MVPD content with over-the-top video
services (such as videos offered from,
for example, Amazon, Hulu, iTunes, or
NetFlix), manipulating the channel
guide, providing more advanced
parental controls, providing new user
interfaces, and integrating with mobile
devices.
18. Two previous standardization
approaches help to illustrate how this
solution could unleash competition and
innovation in equipment used with
MVPD services, while allowing
unfettered innovation in the services
themselves: (i) The Carterfone and
Computer Inquiry decisions required
that the telephone network be
terminated in a standardized RJ–11
interface; and (ii) broadband services
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27267
developed using divergent and rapidly
developing network technologies
terminated in an adapter that presents a
standardized Ethernet interface.
19. The RJ–11 interface requirement
allowed the development of a vibrant
retail market for answering machines,
cordless phones, fax machines,
modems, and other customer-premises
equipment used with the telephone
network. The requirement that the
network terminate in a standardized
interface with no carrier-supplied
terminating device was implemented in
the context of a single telephone
network that used a single, stable
delivery technology. It was a workable
and successful solution in that context
because our telephone network was
based on a nationwide standard.
20. Broadband services differ from
telephone service in two key respects
that have led to a significantly different
approach. Multiple broadband operators
provide services using divergent
network technologies; and those
technologies are not static but are
rapidly developing. Numerous
broadband delivery technologies exist—
among them cable, digital subscriber
line (‘‘DSL’’), satellite, wireless
broadband, and optical fiber to the
home. In each system, the operator
provides a customer with an interface
device such as a cable modem that
performs all of the network-specific
functions and connects via an Ethernet
port to a multitude of competitively
provided customer-premises devices
including computers, printers, game
consoles, digital media devices, wireless
routers, and network storage devices.
This approach has promoted an
innovative and highly competitive retail
market for devices used with broadband
services. At the same time, because each
operator terminates its service in an
interface device that it can swap out as
needed to accommodate innovations in
delivery technologies, this approach has
freed service providers to innovate in
their networks without changing the
Ethernet connection to which customers
attach their devices. For example, a DSL
provider can introduce a new, faster
technology in its network and, if
necessary, swap in a new DSL modem
that incorporates the new technology,
without changing the customer interface
or requiring customers to replace
devices they use with the service. This
allows consumers to benefit from new
and improved services without
incurring the cost of replacing devices
they have purchased at retail—replacing
a single modem is more cost-effective
than replacing each device that accesses
broadband services.
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27268
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
21. One possible reason for the lack of
success in the implementation of
Section 629 to date is that it was
modeled on the earlier telephone
service approach, rather than the
second, broadband approach. As NCTA
has pointed out, the interface
requirement as it applies to telephone
service is not completely analogous. We
agree, and we believe that the approach
to assuring device compatibility with
broadband services may provide a better
model for MVPD device compatibility.
MVPDs, like broadband providers, use
divergent and rapidly developing
delivery technologies, and our
experience with the CableCARD regime
indicates that a static implementation of
section 629 that incorporates networkspecific interface functions into the
navigation devices that consumers
purchase in the retail market is unlikely
to succeed. A more innovative,
pragmatic, and long-term approach may
be to separate those network interface
functions from the consumer devices
through the use of an adapter, as is the
case with broadband services.
22. The AllVid concept would follow
the broadband approach. It would place
the network-specific functions such as
conditional access, provisioning,
reception, and decoding of the signal in
one small, inexpensive operatorprovided adapter, which could be either
(i) a set-back device—which today could
be as small as deck of cards—that
attaches to the back of a consumer’s
television set or set-top box, or (ii) a
home gateway device that routes MVPD
content throughout a subscriber’s home
network. The adapter would act as a
conduit to connect proprietary MVPD
networks with navigation devices, TV
sets, and a broad range of other
equipment in the home. The AllVid
adapter would communicate over open
standards widely used in home
communications protocols, as outlined
below, enabling consumers to select and
access content through navigation
devices of their choosing purchased in
a competitive retail market. MVPDs
would, of course, be free to participate
in the retail market by offering
navigation devices for sale or lease to
consumers, but those devices would be
separate from the adapter and marketed
separately.
23. We believe that this model could
unleash an expanding retail market for
innovative and portable smart video
devices and could also maintain
MVPDs’ freedom to innovate in and
protect their networks. As we envision
the AllVid concept, it could lead to
‘‘[c]ompetition in the manufacturing and
distribution of consumer devices’’ as
Congress envisioned, which ‘‘has always
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:05 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
led to innovation, lower prices and
higher quality,’’ because retail devices
would be able to access the full array of
services offered by all MVPDs and to
integrate those services with other video
sources—something that today’s plugand-play devices and tru2way devices
cannot do. More specifically, we believe
that this new AllVid model could: (i)
Spur the development of a competitive
retail market in navigation devices, thus
providing subscribers with viable
alternatives to leasing or buying a settop box from their MVPD, (ii) drive
down retail prices for devices used to
access MVPD services without
increasing the prices of those services,
(iii) encourage MVPDs to develop and
introduce innovative services without
being inhibited by the need to consult
with navigation device manufacturers,
and (iv) encourage device manufacturers
to develop and introduce innovative
smart video devices without being
deterred by the need to consult with
MVPDs. In the following section, we
seek comment on a framework designed
to achieve those goals; we also
encourage commenters to propose
alternative plans that could achieve the
same goals.
24. AllVid Standards. The AllVid
adapter would perform only the
functions necessary to support devices
connected to the home network, and
should connect to home network
devices using a nationally supported
standard interface that is common
across MVPDs. We expect that an
AllVid adapter could be inexpensive
and physically small but, as set forth
below, seek comment on those
assumptions. We also envision that
MVPDs would provide subscribers with
the AllVid adapters (included in the
price of service, or for a nominal lease
fee, or with the option to purchase), and
that AllVid adapters would likely not be
portable across carriers. We seek
comment on these expectations, as well
as on the specific elements we believe
would be necessary to bring the concept
to fruition. For example, in a petition for
rulemaking filed in the wake of NBP PN
#27, Public Knowledge suggests that an
AllVid-type device would require
‘‘standards for (1) a physical connection,
(2) a communication protocol, (3)
authentication, (4) service discovery,
and (5) content encoding.’’ We seek
comment on Public Knowledge’s
proposal, as well as the list of functions
discussed in detail below that we
believe would be necessary to
implement the AllVid concept. We seek
comment on any other functions for
which standards would be necessary to
develop an AllVid adapter. In this
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Section, we also seek comment on
standards for the adapters, with the
understanding that these standards may
not encompass the entire universe
necessary to develop and deploy AllVid
adapters.
25. AllVid Equipment. The AllVid
equipment would be designed to
operate specifically with one MVPD and
offered through the MVPD’s preferred
mechanism, whether leased or sold at
retail, manufactured by one company or
competitively. We foresee two possible
physical configurations for the AllVid
equipment. In the first configuration,
the AllVid equipment would be a small
‘‘set-back’’ device, capable of
communicating with one navigation
device or TV set and providing at least
two simultaneous video streams to
allow for picture-in-picture and to allow
subscribers to watch a program on one
channel while recording a program on
another channel. In the second
configuration, the AllVid equipment
would act as a whole-home gateway,
capable of simultaneously
communicating with multiple
navigation devices within the home,
and providing at least six simultaneous
video streams within the home (which
would allow picture-in-picture in three
different rooms), possibly through a
modular system that could
accommodate more streams as
necessary. We seek input on each of
these configurations and whether one of
these configurations is more appropriate
than the other, or if there are other
superior configurations that should be
considered.
26. Physical connection. The 100–
BASE–TX Ethernet could act as the
physical layer technology used to
connect the AllVid adapters with
navigation devices. 100–BASE–TX
Ethernet operates at speeds adequate to
allow transfer of multiple high
definition MPEG–2 signals (nominally
15 Mbps each), and it has developed as
a de facto connection for data
transmission. Current and nextgeneration audio-visual equipment has
and will continue to include Ethernet
ports for connectivity for the foreseeable
future. Therefore, adoption of Ethernet
as the physical connection for AllVid
adapters and navigation devices could
enable compatibility with existing
devices. In addition, the ubiquity of
Ethernet could allow the AllVid adapter
and navigation device manufacturers to
defray costs to a large extent. We seek
comment on these predictions. We seek
comment on whether using Ethernet for
the physical connection would be
limiting if Internet video were not
passed through the AllVid adapter. We
also seek comment on any other
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
physical connectors (for example,
Multimedia over Coaxial Cable
(‘‘MoCA’’)) that could serve as the bridge
between AllVid adapters and retail
navigation devices, or whether the
Commission would need to mandate a
physical layer technology at all.
27. Communication Protocol. Internet
Protocol (‘‘IP’’) could act as the
communication protocol between the
AllVid adapter and navigation devices.
Like Ethernet, IP is the de facto standard
protocol for data transmission, and
current and next-generation audiovisual equipment is capable of handling
IP communication. As a widely adopted
protocol, IP is familiar to hardware and
software developers, which would allow
the retail market to flourish for smart
video devices. We seek comment on
whether IP would be the best choice for
an AllVid communication protocol. We
also seek comment on any other
communication protocols that could
serve as a standardized communication
protocol between AllVid adapters and
retail navigation devices.
28. Encryption and Authentication.
Both the MPAA and CableLabs have
approved digital transmission content
protection over Internet protocol
(‘‘DTCP–IP’’) technology as an
acceptable method of content
encryption to prevent content theft, and
it is the content protection scheme used
in the Digital Living Network Alliance
(‘‘DLNA’’) standard. For these reasons,
we believe that the DTCP–IP standard
would be a logical choice for content
encryption and device authentication,
and we seek comment on that
assessment. We also seek comment on
whether it would be practical to give
each navigation device its own specific
key. We believe that this could prevent
a situation in which entire model
classes of navigation devices would
need to be deauthorized in the event
that a key were compromised. Should
the Commission select a party to
administer the public key database in
the same manner that the Commission
handled the white spaces database, or
would the relevant industry parties be
able to agree on a third party to handle
maintenance of a public key database?
In the event that commenters are in
favor of a third party maintaining the
public key database, we seek proposals
regarding parties that can handle that
task. We seek comment on the ideas
presented here with respect to
encryption and authentication. We seek
comment also on any other proposals
that could serve the encryption and
authentication functions in an AllVidconnected home network.
29. Content Ordering and Billing. At
least one party has indicated that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:05 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
MVPDs need the ability to verify that
their subscribers have actually ordered
pay-per-view and subscription content.
What specific methods could the AllVid
and navigation device use to facilitate
ordering of pay-per-view and
subscription content? We envision that
the AllVid adapter would perform video
rendering for the purpose of verifying a
subscriber’s purchase of MVPD content
such as Video on Demand (‘‘VOD’’) or a
subscription service. We seek comment
on these issues, including any other
proposals that would allow MVPDs to
verify that a subscriber wishes to
purchase a specific MVPD service.
30. Service Discovery. TiVo suggests
that Universal Plug and Play (‘‘uPnP’’)
protocols would be ‘‘an obvious
technology choice for service
discovery.’’ TiVo explains that the only
protocols that the Commission would
need to adopt for service discovery are
‘‘gateway advertisement, which allows a
gateway to announce its presence to
consumer devices on the home network,
and service browsing, in which a
consumer device can browse and access
the available services on the gateway.’’
We seek comment on TiVo’s proposal
and invite commenters to propose any
other protocols that would allow a
navigation device to discover MVPD
content on a home network with an
AllVid adapter. For example, to achieve
the efficiencies that come with
switched-digital video, devices attached
to a cable network need to inform the
cable headend when a subscriber stops
watching a program. What protocols
would be necessary for the AllVid
adapter to query whether the navigation
device still requires access to the
program stream?
31. Content Encoding. A recent
controversy over audio-visual codec
support has led to heightened awareness
about the issue of content encoding.
Ideally, navigation devices should be
designed to decode content that has
been encoded in a number of specified
formats and the AllVid adapter should
be designed to transfer content in at
least one of those formats. This would
allow MVPDs to encode their content as
they wish without the need for the
AllVid adapter to transcode the content,
which could make the AllVid adapter
more expensive and less energy
efficient. We seek comment on whether
the Commission would need to specify
the formats, and, if so, on the audiovisual codecs that the Commission
should require navigation devices to
handle.
32. Intellectual Property. The
Commission seeks comment on
intellectual property issues related to
proposed standards for the AllVid
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27269
adapter. How long would it take for the
necessary standards to be developed,
and what costs would be involved?
Would a requirement that all rights
holders license their relevant
intellectual property on reasonable and
nondiscriminatory terms allow the
market to flourish and provide adequate
incentives for innovation? Does the
Commission have the legal authority to
mandate such terms? We seek comment
on whether patent pools exist for any
technologies that might be adopted. We
seek comment on the licensing fees
charged by patent holders for these
technologies, and which parties hold
those rights. We also seek comment on
any other intellectual property issues
relevant to the AllVid concept.
33. Other Issues. The Commission
also seeks comment on any additional
standardization work that would be
necessary to implement the AllVid
regime. For example, we seek comment
on how the AllVid adapter should
resolve resource conflicts. If a
subscriber’s home is equipped to handle
six separate video streams and seven
people in the home want to watch
programming on seven different
devices, which devices take
precedence? Should the most recent
device to make a request have the ability
to override the conflict and choose
which device to exclude? We seek
comment on innovative ways to resolve
device conflicts.
34. Several commenters have
highlighted issues regarding how a
home network would handle emergency
alert system (‘‘EAS’’) messages, closed
captioning data, and MVPD parental
controls. We note that there are existing
standards to transmit closed captioning
data and parental control data for
broadcast television and unencrypted
cable television. We seek comment on
whether these standards can be adapted
readily to perform these functions in the
AllVid regime or whether new
standards development is necessary. We
note that development of a next
generation EAS system is underway and
seek comment on how EAS messages
formatted in the Common Alerting
Protocol could be carried in the AllVid
system and received by devices. CEA
and the Society of Cable
Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE)
have both adopted standards for the
carrying of EAS within the home
network. We seek comment on what
additional standards work is necessary
to assure that retail devices receive and
display EAS messages.
35. We seek comment also on whether
navigation devices in the AllVid system
should include over-the-air ATSC
tuners. The Commission’s rules require
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27270
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
unidirectional digital cable devices to
include an ATSC tuner. In the Second
Report and Order, the Commission
concluded that ‘‘the public has come to
understand that television receivers
labeled or marketed as ‘cable ready’
universally include the capability of
receiving over-the-air broadcast service.’’
Would consumers similarly expect this
equipment to receive over-the-air
broadcast service? Does the Commission
have the authority under the AllChannel Receiver Act to impose such a
requirement?
36. We seek comment also on
differences in delivery technology that
might require specific MVPD providers
to include functionality beyond what is
necessary for conditional access,
provisioning, reception, and decoding of
the signal. For example, given the DBS
industry’s inherently one-way
distribution model, DISH Network and
DIRECTV have indicated that home
gateway devices for DBS would need to
include hard drives for video caching to
allow their subscribers to view VOD
programming instantly and might need
to include additional ‘‘intelligence.’’ We
seek proposals on any network-specific
functions that may need to be included
in particular operators’ AllVid adapters.
We also seek comment on how we could
enable evolution of the AllVid system,
with respect to both the components of
the device and the output standards, in
order to accommodate technological
innovation over time. Finally, we seek
comment on any other issues regarding
the AllVid regime and specific
proposals that would allow the
Commission to resolve those issues.
37. AllVid Support Requirements. The
National Broadband Plan calls for
Commission action to require MVPDs
who offer digital navigation devices for
lease to be prepared to offer AllVid
equipment to their subscribers by
December 31, 2012. We seek comment
on that deadline, including measures
that would be effective in enforcing it.
To encourage MVPDs to adhere to this
deadline, should the Commission take
supplemental measures that would
apply to MVPDs that are unable to
deploy AllVid equipment to all new
subscribers and to any subscribers who
request AllVid equipment after this
deadline (such as denying extensions of
certain CableCARD waivers), or do the
Commission’s existing enforcement
mechanisms, which allow the
imposition of forfeitures, provide
sufficient incentives for MVPDs to meet
such a deadline? How can the
Commission prevent an overabundance
of waiver requests similar to the ones
filed in response to the integration ban,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:05 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
which some have argued have brought
about policymaking by waiver?
38. In concept, the AllVid approach
would provide a successor technology
to CableCARD. While the Commission is
separately proposing steps to ameliorate
shortcomings in the retail market for
CableCARD devices in the interim, we
anticipate that AllVid devices could
over time replace CableCARD devices
on retail shelves. Accordingly, we seek
comment on whether the Commission
should consider eliminating its
CableCARD rules, and if so, the
appropriate date for such a change. We
seek comment on consumer
expectations regarding the lifespan of
their devices, and whether the AllVid
approach or any other approach could
be implemented in a way that limits the
number of CableCARD devices that
become obsolete.
39. Navigation Device Economics.
Certain parties suggest that a retail
market for navigation devices may be
destined to fail because consumers are
not interested in owning navigation
devices. We seek comment on this
assessment, including whether
consumers prefer to lease at
government-regulated ‘‘cost-plus’’ rates,
whether consumers wish to avoid the
risk of obsolescence of navigation
devices, and whether consumers’
inability to ‘‘port’’ a retail navigation
device when he or she changes MVPDs
limits the attractiveness of the retail
option. The cable industry has adopted
the leasing model, charging customers a
monthly fee that allows consumers to
avoid a larger upfront cost entailed by
a retail purchase. To evaluate the
leasing versus retail equipment models,
we seek data on consumer behavior
when faced with a lease versus purchase
decision, concerning navigation devices
and analogous consumer electronic
devices. We expect that MVPDs will
want to continue to offer devices for
lease or sale that provide greater
functionality than an AllVid adapter.
Should we require those devices to
attach to the AllVid network, through an
adapter? How would our decision on
whether operator-provided navigation
devices must commonly rely on the
AllVid network affect the economics of
the retail and leasing markets?
40. What are consumer expectations
with respect to ‘‘navigation devices?’’
Traditionally, the Commission and
interested parties have considered the
term navigation devices to include
televisions, set-top boxes (including
DVRs), and home theater computers. Do
these devices comprise the universe of
navigation devices, and if not, what
other devices could perform navigation
device functions? Are there specific
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
minimum functions that a navigation
device needs to perform? Should there
be different classifications of navigation
devices, and if so, should the
Commission dictate the minimum
functionality requirements of specific
classes? What steps can the Commission
take to increase economic and energy
efficiencies that will allow consumers to
connect fewer devices to their television
display by consolidating functionality
into one device?
41. Would MVPDs be at an advantage
in providing set-top boxes because they
could provide home installation
whereas consumers typically would
have to install devices purchased in the
retail market themselves? Do MVPDs
earn a profit on home installations or, if
not, would self-installations of retail
devices by MVPD customers save
MVPDs money? We seek comment also
on the assertion that the cost of bringing
navigation device functionality into
television sets exceeds what consumers
are willing to pay at retail. We seek data
on consumer purchasing behavior
regarding home entertainment
equipment. To what extent are
consumers willing to pay for additional
functionalities in the equipment they
purchase? Would the AllVid concept
change the economics of consumer
preferences? How much would an
AllVid adapter cost? How much would
it cost to add AllVid compatibility to a
navigation device? Should the cost of an
AllVid adapter and charges for
installation by the MVPD be calculated
according to the Commission’s rate
regulation rules under section 76.923 in
rate-regulated communities? Finally, we
seek comment on whether economic or
technological factors dictate that AllVid
adapters would have to be provided by
the MVPD, or whether AllVid adapters
could be sold at retail, as NCTA has
suggested in the past.
42. Alternative Proposals. In response
to NBP PN #27, several MVPDs
expressed reservations about a ‘‘home
gateway’’ technology mandate. These
commenters suggest that the
Commission should encourage marketdriven negotiations and standards
development to achieve the goals of
section 629. In this vein, we seek
alternative proposals to the AllVid
concept that could lead to the
implementation of a competitive market
solution for smart video devices by
December 31, 2012. We also seek input
on whether the movement of functions
away from navigation devices and into
the cloud or network might represent a
viable alternative. How would the
AllVid proposal affect the development
of downloadable security? Are there
specific incentives that the Commission
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
could create that would expedite market
negotiations and address the
shortcomings of the current CableCARD
regime discussed above?
43. Other Issues. Content
Presentation. Much of the innovation in
television reception devices is related to
easy-to-use graphical user interfaces;
device manufacturers distinguish their
products from one another by providing
better user experiences. MVPDs argue,
however, that a graphical user interface
that is standard across its footprint
makes consumer education and support
easier; they also state that marketing
agreements often require the MVPD to
provide certain content within the
electronic program guide. Providers also
argue that multiple graphical user
interfaces would create customer
confusion with regard to whom
subscribers should call with questions
about problems associated with the user
interface, service, and hardware
compatibility. What steps should be
taken to minimize any potential for
confusion with regard to the appropriate
provider of customer service for retail
device product performance, warranty,
and service-related issues? Given the
inherent conflict between innovation
and standardization, we seek comment
on whether the Commission should
adopt rules governing the way in which
MVPD content is presented. What steps
should be taken to protect agreements
between MVPDs and content providers?
Is there a way to balance MVPDs’
interests in improved customer service
and adherence to their marketing
contracts against the consumer benefits
that result from electronics
manufacturers differentiating their
products from competitors’? We seek
comment on the best way to resolve this
issue.
44. We also seek comment on
intellectual property issues associated
with electronic programming guides.
The Consumer Electronics Association
asserts that consumers already pay for
programming guide data as part of their
subscription fees, that the data is not
subject to intellectual property
protection, and that therefore MVPDs
should provide programming guide data
in a form that would allow competitive
devices to display the data as they wish.
MVPDs disagree, arguing that the
intellectual property issues related to
electronic programming guide
presentation and data are more complex
than the Consumer Electronics
Association suggests. In addition to
seeking comment on the intellectual
property issues, we seek specific
proposals for solutions or reasonable
compromises that could address those
issues and achieve the objectives of this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:05 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
proceeding. For example, would it be
reasonable for MVPDs to charge
separately for guide data, thereby saving
subscribers who use third-party data
from having to pay for the same data
twice?
45. Authority. The DC Circuit has
found that section 629 gives the
Commission broad discretion to adopt
regulations to assure a competitive
market for navigation devices.
Throughout this proceeding, certain
parties have argued that the
Commission lacks the authority to
require MVPDs to disaggregate their
programming guides and allow retail
devices to ‘‘repackage’’ their content.
Section 629 directs the Commission to
adopt regulations to assure the retail
commercial availability of navigation
devices, and the DC Circuit’s review has
been ‘‘particularly deferential’’ in cases
where the ‘‘FCC must make judgments
about future market behavior with
respect to a brand-new technology.’’ We
seek further comment on our authority
under section 629 of the Act.
IV. Procedural Matters
46. Ex Parte Rules. This is an exempt
proceeding in which ex parte
presentations are permitted (except
during the Sunshine Agenda period)
and need not be disclosed.
47. Filing Requirements. Pursuant to
§§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested
parties may file comments on or before
July 13, 2010; reply comments are due
on or before August 12, 2010. Comments
may be filed using: (1) The
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal
Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3)
by filing paper copies. See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
48. Electronic Filers: Comments may
be filed electronically using the Internet
by accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
49. Paper Filers: Parties who choose
to file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. If more than
one docket or rulemaking number
appears in the caption of this
proceeding, filers must submit two
additional copies for each additional
docket or rulemaking number.
50. Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
27271
51. Effective December 28, 2009, all
hand-delivered or messenger-delivered
paper filings for the Commission’s
Secretary must be delivered to FCC
Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW., Room
TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. All
hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building. The filing hours
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
52. Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
53. U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
54. People with Disabilities: To
request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (braille,
large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an e-mail to
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–
418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (tty).
55. Availability of Documents.
Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be available for
public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY–
A257, Washington, DC 20554. These
documents will also be available via
ECFS. Documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word,
and/or Adobe Acrobat.
56. Accessibility Information. To
request information in accessible
formats (computer diskettes, large print,
audio recording, and Braille), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC’s
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (TTY). This document can
also be downloaded in Word and
Portable Document Format (PDF) at:
https://www.fcc.gov.
57. Additional Information. For
additional information on this
proceeding, contact Steven Broeckaert,
Steven.Broeckaert@fcc.gov, Brendan
Murray, Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov, of the
Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202)
418–2120, or Alison Neplokh,
Alison.Neplokh@fcc.gov, of the Media
Bureau, Engineering Division, (202)
418–1083.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–11388 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 93 (Friday, May 14, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27264-27271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11388]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket No. 10-91; CS Docket No. 97-80; PP Docket No. 00-67; FCC 10-
60]
Video Device Competition; Implementation of Section 304 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996: Commercial Availability of Navigation
Devices; Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics
Equipment
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on ways to
unleash competition in the retail market for smart set-top video
devices that are compatible with all multichannel video programming
distributor (``MVPD'') services. The goal of this proceeding is to
better accomplish the intent of Congress as set forth in section 629 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. In particular, we wish to
explore the potential for allowing any electronics manufacturer to
offer smart video devices at retail that can be used with the services
of any MVPD and without the need to coordinate or negotiate with MVPDs.
We believe that this could foster a competitive retail market in smart
video devices to spur investment and innovation, increase consumer
choice, allow unfettered innovation in MVPD delivery platforms, and
encourage wider broadband use and adoption.
DATES: Comments for this proceeding are due on or before July 13, 2010;
reply comments are due on or before August 12, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 10-91;
CS Docket No. 97-80; and PP Docket No. 00-67, by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Brendan Murray, Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov, of the
Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-2120 or Alison Neplokh,
Alison.Neplokh@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Engineering Division,
(202) 418-1083.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Inquiry (NOI), FCC 10-60, adopted and released on April 21, 2010.
The full text of this document is available for public inspection and
copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center,
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS
(https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete
text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th
Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request this
document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio
recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Summary of the Notice of Inquiry
I. Introduction
1. In this Notice of Inquiry, the Commission seeks comment on
specific steps we can take to unleash competition in the retail market
for smart, set-top video devices (``smart video devices'') that are
compatible with all multichannel video programming distributor
(``MVPD'') services. Our goal in this proceeding is to better
effectuate the intent of Congress as set forth in section 629 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended. In particular, we wish to
explore the potential for
[[Page 27265]]
allowing any electronics manufacturer to offer smart video devices at
retail that can be used with the services of any MVPD and without the
need to coordinate or negotiate with MVPDs. We believe that this could
foster a competitive retail market in smart video devices to spur
investment and innovation, increase consumer choice, allow unfettered
innovation in MVPD delivery platforms, and encourage wider broadband
use and adoption.
2. More specifically, we introduce the concept of an adapter that
could act either as a small ``set-back'' device for connection to a
single smart video device or as a gateway allowing all consumer
electronics devices in the home to access multichannel video
programming services. Unlike the existing cable-centric CableCARD
technology, this adapter could make possible the development and
marketing of smart video devices that attach to any MVPD service
anywhere in the United States, which could greatly enhance the
incentives for manufacturers to enter the retail market. As conceived,
the adapter would communicate with the MVPD service, performing the
tuning and security decryption functions that may be specific to a
particular MVPD; the smart video device would perform navigation
functions, including presentation of programming guides and search
functionality. The Commission seeks comment on this concept. We also
invite any alternative proposals that would achieve the same objective
of eliminating barriers to entry in the retail market for smart video
devices that are compatible with all MVPD services.
3. The Commission envisions that the proposal adopted in this
proceeding would be a successor technology to CableCARD. We predict
that smart video devices built to new standards that would be adopted
through this proceeding would eventually replace CableCARD devices on
retail shelves. Accordingly, in this Notice of Inquiry the Commission
also seeks comment on the future of the CableCARD regime. We are
separately releasing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to address a
number of CableCARD implementation issues pending the completion of a
successor regime.
II. Background
4. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress added section
629 to the Communications Act. Section 629 directed the Commission to
adopt regulations to ensure the commercial availability of navigation
devices used by consumers to access services from MVPDs. Section 629
covers ``equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video
programming and other services offered over multichannel video
programming systems.'' In enacting the section, Congress pointed to the
vigorous retail market for customer premises equipment (``CPE'') used
with the telephone network and sought to create a similarly vigorous
market for devices used with MVPD services.
5. Congress was prescient in enacting section 629 in 1996. In
analog cable systems, which were common throughout the 1990s, most
consumers could connect their ``cable ready'' video cassette recorders
and television sets directly to a cable operator's system without the
need for any other equipment. During that time, many people became
accustomed to and appreciated the convenience of the ``plug and play''
aspect of connecting a coaxial cable from the wall directly into a
television set to receive their video programming service. But this
analog ``plug and play'' technology was unable to support advancements
in video delivery technology such as digital cable, bidirectional video
services such as pay-per-view, and the emergence of competitive
services from Direct Broadcast Satellite (``DBS'') providers, which
were widely available by 2000. These new developments required the use
of more advanced encryption and encoding techniques and bidirectional
communication, among other functions, and the MVPDs built this
capability into proprietary set-top boxes.
6. The Commission has adopted regulations in response to the
statutory mandate in section 629 to ensure retail competition in the
``navigation device'' market. Those regulations have enabled
competitors such as TiVo and Moxi to enter the market. However, the
Commission's rules as they currently exist have yet to realize
Congress' charge to develop a fully competitive retail market.
7. The Commission adopted its first Report and Order, 63 FR 38089,
to implement section 629 in 1998. The Report and Order required MVPDs
to make available a conditional access element separate from the basic
navigation device, in order to permit unaffiliated manufacturers and
retailers to manufacture and market navigation devices while allowing
MVPDs to retain control over their system security. The technical
details of this conditional access element were to be worked out in
industry negotiations. In 2003, the Commission adopted standards on
which the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and the
Consumer Electronics Association had agreed in a Memorandum of
Understanding (``MOU''), with certain modifications. The MOU prescribed
the technical standards for ``CableCARD'' compatibility. The CableCARD
is a security device provided by an MVPD, which can be inserted into a
set-top box or television set bought by a consumer in the retail market
and enable the consumer's television to display MVPD encrypted video
programming. To ensure adequate support by MVPDs for CableCARDs, the
Commission prohibited MVPDs from integrating the security function into
set-top boxes they lease to consumers, thus forcing MVPDs to rely on
CableCARDs as well. This ``integration ban'' was initially set to go
into effect on January 1, 2005, but that date was later extended to
July 1, 2007.
8. The Commission's rules require cable operators to support only
one-way plug-and-play capability for retail CableCARD devices. This
largely reflects the absence of a proven market for two-way services
when negotiations began, and a desire within the industry to achieve
consensus on how to assure access to the most basic services first and
not await the conclusion of negotiations regarding access to new
services that might be introduced later. Accordingly, the Commission's
rules do not require cable operators to provide access for retail
devices to two-way services such as interactive program guides, pay-
per-view, or video-on-demand services, which were nascent services in
2003 and would have required complex and lengthy technical
consideration. For that reason among others, retail CableCARD devices
have not been able to offer all of the cable services available to
subscribers who lease their set-top boxes from the cable operator. This
is partially responsible for the failure of the CableCARD solution to
create a strong retail market for navigation devices.
9. Furthermore, although the CableCARD rules nominally apply to all
MVPDs, the Commission exempted MVPDs that operate throughout the United
States and offer devices for retail sale through unaffiliated vendors.
In practice, this means that DBS operators are not subject to these
rules. More recent entrant AT&T does not provide CableCARD devices, and
Verizon supports CableCARDs to a limited extent, but not for its
advanced IP services. The Commission also has given numerous
integration ban waivers to cable operators who have demonstrated good
cause for waiver, such as cable operators in financial distress and
cable operators who have upgraded their systems to all-digital. While
numerous, these integration ban waivers involve a de minimis number of
[[Page 27266]]
cable subscribers nationwide. The Commission also started granting
waivers for low-cost, limited capability set-top boxes and, although
these waivers will result in more than a de minimis number of
subscribers receiving these boxes, these boxes are able to access only
one-way services and provide a substantial public interest benefit by
significantly reducing costs to consumers for these low-end services.
10. Unfortunately, the Commission's efforts to date have not led to
a robustly competitive retail market for navigation devices that
connect to subscription video services. Most cable subscribers continue
to use the traditional set-top boxes leased from their cable operator.
Although following adoption of the CableCARD rules some television
manufacturers sold unidirectional digital cable-ready products
(``UDCPs''), most manufactures have abandoned the technology. Indeed,
since July 1, 2007, cable operators have deployed only 456,000
CableCARDs for installation in retail devices, compared with their
deployment of more than 17.7 million leased devices pre-equipped with
CableCARDs since the integration ban went into effect. Furthermore,
while 605 UDCP models have been certified or verified for use with
CableCARDs, only 37 of those certifications have occurred since the
integration ban took effect in July 2007. This indicates that, with the
exceptions of TiVo, Moxi, and CableCARD-equipped home theater
computers, retail device manufacturers have abandoned CableCARD
technology before any substantial benefits of the integration ban could
be realized.
11. The Commission anticipated that the parties to the MOU would
negotiate a further agreement to achieve two-way compatibility, using
either a software-based or hardware-based solution. When the Commission
realized in June 2007 that negotiations were not leading to an
agreement for two-way compatibility between consumer electronics
devices and cable systems, it released a Third Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 72 FR 40818, seeking comment on competing
proposals for two-way compatibility and other related issues. In the
wake of this Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the six
largest cable operators and a number of consumer electronics
manufacturers negotiated an agreement for bidirectional compatibility
that continues to rely and build on CableCARDs by using a middleware-
based solution called ``tru2way.''
12. We are not convinced that the tru2way solution will assure the
development of a commercial retail market as directed by Congress. As
an alternative, we seek to explore the potential for fulfilling this
statutory directive by providing consumer electronics manufacturers
with the ability to build smart video navigation devices that can
access MVPD content regardless of the delivery technology the provider
employs and to ensure that necessary licensing agreements do not
contain contractual terms that limit the functionality of the devices.
Although tru2way is designed to be a two-way solution for traditional
cable operators, it requires manufacturers to sign a license agreement
that contains limitations that may hinder innovation. For example, the
agreement limits a device's ability to integrate video from multiple
sources into a consistent viewing experience by limiting the
presentation and content of a tru2way device's graphical user
interface. This could prevent a tru2way device from searching a
consumer's computer, DVR, Netflix account, and cable-operator-provided
video on demand offerings for a particular film or for films that
include the consumer's favorite actor. Furthermore, tru2way is an
unworkable solution for DBS and other non-cable providers. Even service
from a cable provider like Verizon, which provides most of its video
using the same QAM delivery technology as traditional cable operators,
but uses Internet Protocol (``IP'') for interactive functions such as
video-on-demand, currently is not compatible with tru2way. Finally, the
fact that the DBS providers are the second and third largest MVPDs,
continue to gain market share, and yet are not subject to the
integration ban also may be impeding the development of a vibrant
retail market by artificially limiting the market for competitive
retail devices. Despite the importance of being able to expand the
retail market to reach the DBS providers' networks, most consumer
electronics manufacturers acknowledge that an attempt to establish
standards for navigation devices that would work with each of the
different delivery technologies without some intermediation would be
impractical and prohibitively expensive.
13. The approaches considered to date have a number of inherent
limitations. Both the one-way CableCARD and tru2way approaches focus on
television sets and digital video recorders (``DVRs'') as the initial
consumer device, with that device housing security (through the
CableCARD), tuning, and navigation functions. Yet delivery platforms
continue to evolve at a rapid pace. As these delivery platforms evolve,
consumers may need to upgrade or replace their devices to maintain
compatibility with those delivery platforms, even if the device is
still physically sound. It is impractical to expect consumers to spend
hundreds of dollars to replace their television sets or set-top boxes
to accommodate each delivery innovation. A subscriber can avoid that
risk by renting an HD set-top box from a cable operator for an average
cost of $8.22 per month. This disparity can be expected to perpetuate
reliance on cable operators' set-top leasing model and undermine
development of a vigorous retail market in navigation devices even if
tru2way is successfully deployed.
14. On December 3, 2009, the Commission's Omnibus Broadband
Initiative (``OBI'') released a Public Notice (``NBP PN 27'')
seeking comment on four issues related to the ability of manufacturers
to compete and innovate in the video device market. Specifically, the
Public Notice sought comment on (i) the technological and market-based
limitations that prevent retail devices from accessing all types of
content; (ii) whether a retail market for network-agnostic video
devices could spur broadband use and adoption and achieve the goals of
section 629; (iii) whether the home broadband service model could be
adapted to provide for audio-visual device connectivity; and (iv) what
obstacles may hinder convergence of internet and MVPD-provided video.
Commenters generally agreed that the technological limitations that
prevent devices from accessing all types of content can be traced to
the different conditional access schemes, delivery technologies, and
platforms that MVPDs use. Commenters expressed some disagreement about
whether network-agnostic video devices would spur broadband use and
adoption, but generally agreed that true network agnosticism is a
laudable goal for navigation devices. Commenters also generally agreed
that the home broadband service model could be adapted to provide for
audio-visual device connectivity, but some disagreed about the specific
methods that should be used for such connectivity. Finally, commenters
generally agreed that the obstacles that hinder convergence of Internet
and MVPD-provided video are divergent delivery technologies and content
protection methods. Certain commenters also cited business practices
that deter entry into the market. NCTA recently filed a letter
expressing its members' commitment to a set of principles largely
supportive of
[[Page 27267]]
our objectives in launching this proceeding.
III. Discussion
15. In this Notice of Inquiry, we seek comment on ways to achieve
the objective that Congress established nearly fifteen years ago. While
MVPD services have become far more robust in the intervening years, for
the most part the consumer experience with respect to the equipment
that is required to access those services has not. Consumers have shown
limited interest in purchasing retail devices that can access MVPD
services under our existing rules, and we believe that two fundamental
defects in the current regime account for this reluctance. First, with
few exceptions retail navigation devices are unable to provide
functionality beyond that available in devices that subscribers can
lease from their providers and often are unable to access many of the
MVPD services that leased set-top devices are able to access. Second,
as a general matter a retail navigation device purchased for use with
one MVPD's services cannot be used with the services of a competing
MVPD. We seek comment on these premises, and we invite commenters to
offer other explanations for the failure of a retail market for
navigation devices to emerge.
16. Assuming that these premises are in the main correct, we
propose a solution that could address these two fundamental problems
and seek comment on them. We believe that the concept discussed below
could give device manufacturers the ability to develop ``smart''
products that can access any service that an MVPD provides without the
need to enter into restrictive license agreements with MVPDs. The
concept also could give device manufacturers the ability to develop
smart video devices that can access MVPD programming regardless of the
delivery technology that the MVPD uses. Accordingly, we introduce and
seek comment on a model that would require MVPDs to provide a small,
low-cost adapter that would connect to proprietary MVPD networks and
would provide a common interface for connection to televisions, DVRs,
and other smart video devices, as described below. This adapter, a
further development of the concept of the ``gateway device''
recommended in Chapter 4 of the National Broadband Plan, would perform
the conditional access functions as well as tuning, reception, and
upstream communication as directed by the smart video device. The
adapter and the smart video device would communicate with each other
using a standard interface, but each adapter would be system-specific
to a particular MVPD in order to communicate with its network.
Innovations in a MVPDs' delivery technology might require substitution
of a new adapter but would not require the consumer to replace her
smart video device or other in-home equipment. While the Commission
seeks comment on this concept, we also encourage commenters to present
other proposals that would remove barriers to the establishment of a
retail market for smart video devices compatible with all MVPD
services. If commenters disagree that the root problems involve limits
on device functionality and portability across MVPDs, we invite them to
identify what they believe are the obstacles to a competitive retail
market in navigation devices and to propose solutions.
17. The AllVid Concept. Ideally, the Commission's all video
(``AllVid'') solution would work for all MVPDs and lead to a nationwide
interoperability standard, much as Ethernet and the IEEE 802.11
standards have led to nationwide interoperability for customer data
networks while allowing broadband service providers to deploy differing
proprietary network technologies. The AllVid solution would be designed
to accommodate any delivery technology that an MVPD chooses to use and
allow MVPDs to continue unfettered innovation in video delivery,
because the MVPD-provided AllVid adapter, rather than the consumer-
owned smart video device, would be responsible for all communication
with the MVPD. At the same time, it would allow consumer electronics
manufacturers to design to a stable interface and to integrate multiple
functions within a retail device. This approach would provide the
necessary flexibility for consumer electronics manufacturers to develop
new technologies, including combining MVPD content with over-the-top
video services (such as videos offered from, for example, Amazon, Hulu,
iTunes, or NetFlix), manipulating the channel guide, providing more
advanced parental controls, providing new user interfaces, and
integrating with mobile devices.
18. Two previous standardization approaches help to illustrate how
this solution could unleash competition and innovation in equipment
used with MVPD services, while allowing unfettered innovation in the
services themselves: (i) The Carterfone and Computer Inquiry decisions
required that the telephone network be terminated in a standardized RJ-
11 interface; and (ii) broadband services developed using divergent and
rapidly developing network technologies terminated in an adapter that
presents a standardized Ethernet interface.
19. The RJ-11 interface requirement allowed the development of a
vibrant retail market for answering machines, cordless phones, fax
machines, modems, and other customer-premises equipment used with the
telephone network. The requirement that the network terminate in a
standardized interface with no carrier-supplied terminating device was
implemented in the context of a single telephone network that used a
single, stable delivery technology. It was a workable and successful
solution in that context because our telephone network was based on a
nationwide standard.
20. Broadband services differ from telephone service in two key
respects that have led to a significantly different approach. Multiple
broadband operators provide services using divergent network
technologies; and those technologies are not static but are rapidly
developing. Numerous broadband delivery technologies exist--among them
cable, digital subscriber line (``DSL''), satellite, wireless
broadband, and optical fiber to the home. In each system, the operator
provides a customer with an interface device such as a cable modem that
performs all of the network-specific functions and connects via an
Ethernet port to a multitude of competitively provided customer-
premises devices including computers, printers, game consoles, digital
media devices, wireless routers, and network storage devices. This
approach has promoted an innovative and highly competitive retail
market for devices used with broadband services. At the same time,
because each operator terminates its service in an interface device
that it can swap out as needed to accommodate innovations in delivery
technologies, this approach has freed service providers to innovate in
their networks without changing the Ethernet connection to which
customers attach their devices. For example, a DSL provider can
introduce a new, faster technology in its network and, if necessary,
swap in a new DSL modem that incorporates the new technology, without
changing the customer interface or requiring customers to replace
devices they use with the service. This allows consumers to benefit
from new and improved services without incurring the cost of replacing
devices they have purchased at retail--replacing a single modem is more
cost-effective than replacing each device that accesses broadband
services.
[[Page 27268]]
21. One possible reason for the lack of success in the
implementation of Section 629 to date is that it was modeled on the
earlier telephone service approach, rather than the second, broadband
approach. As NCTA has pointed out, the interface requirement as it
applies to telephone service is not completely analogous. We agree, and
we believe that the approach to assuring device compatibility with
broadband services may provide a better model for MVPD device
compatibility. MVPDs, like broadband providers, use divergent and
rapidly developing delivery technologies, and our experience with the
CableCARD regime indicates that a static implementation of section 629
that incorporates network-specific interface functions into the
navigation devices that consumers purchase in the retail market is
unlikely to succeed. A more innovative, pragmatic, and long-term
approach may be to separate those network interface functions from the
consumer devices through the use of an adapter, as is the case with
broadband services.
22. The AllVid concept would follow the broadband approach. It
would place the network-specific functions such as conditional access,
provisioning, reception, and decoding of the signal in one small,
inexpensive operator-provided adapter, which could be either (i) a set-
back device--which today could be as small as deck of cards--that
attaches to the back of a consumer's television set or set-top box, or
(ii) a home gateway device that routes MVPD content throughout a
subscriber's home network. The adapter would act as a conduit to
connect proprietary MVPD networks with navigation devices, TV sets, and
a broad range of other equipment in the home. The AllVid adapter would
communicate over open standards widely used in home communications
protocols, as outlined below, enabling consumers to select and access
content through navigation devices of their choosing purchased in a
competitive retail market. MVPDs would, of course, be free to
participate in the retail market by offering navigation devices for
sale or lease to consumers, but those devices would be separate from
the adapter and marketed separately.
23. We believe that this model could unleash an expanding retail
market for innovative and portable smart video devices and could also
maintain MVPDs' freedom to innovate in and protect their networks. As
we envision the AllVid concept, it could lead to ``[c]ompetition in the
manufacturing and distribution of consumer devices'' as Congress
envisioned, which ``has always led to innovation, lower prices and
higher quality,'' because retail devices would be able to access the
full array of services offered by all MVPDs and to integrate those
services with other video sources--something that today's plug-and-play
devices and tru2way devices cannot do. More specifically, we believe
that this new AllVid model could: (i) Spur the development of a
competitive retail market in navigation devices, thus providing
subscribers with viable alternatives to leasing or buying a set-top box
from their MVPD, (ii) drive down retail prices for devices used to
access MVPD services without increasing the prices of those services,
(iii) encourage MVPDs to develop and introduce innovative services
without being inhibited by the need to consult with navigation device
manufacturers, and (iv) encourage device manufacturers to develop and
introduce innovative smart video devices without being deterred by the
need to consult with MVPDs. In the following section, we seek comment
on a framework designed to achieve those goals; we also encourage
commenters to propose alternative plans that could achieve the same
goals.
24. AllVid Standards. The AllVid adapter would perform only the
functions necessary to support devices connected to the home network,
and should connect to home network devices using a nationally supported
standard interface that is common across MVPDs. We expect that an
AllVid adapter could be inexpensive and physically small but, as set
forth below, seek comment on those assumptions. We also envision that
MVPDs would provide subscribers with the AllVid adapters (included in
the price of service, or for a nominal lease fee, or with the option to
purchase), and that AllVid adapters would likely not be portable across
carriers. We seek comment on these expectations, as well as on the
specific elements we believe would be necessary to bring the concept to
fruition. For example, in a petition for rulemaking filed in the wake
of NBP PN 27, Public Knowledge suggests that an AllVid-type
device would require ``standards for (1) a physical connection, (2) a
communication protocol, (3) authentication, (4) service discovery, and
(5) content encoding.'' We seek comment on Public Knowledge's proposal,
as well as the list of functions discussed in detail below that we
believe would be necessary to implement the AllVid concept. We seek
comment on any other functions for which standards would be necessary
to develop an AllVid adapter. In this Section, we also seek comment on
standards for the adapters, with the understanding that these standards
may not encompass the entire universe necessary to develop and deploy
AllVid adapters.
25. AllVid Equipment. The AllVid equipment would be designed to
operate specifically with one MVPD and offered through the MVPD's
preferred mechanism, whether leased or sold at retail, manufactured by
one company or competitively. We foresee two possible physical
configurations for the AllVid equipment. In the first configuration,
the AllVid equipment would be a small ``set-back'' device, capable of
communicating with one navigation device or TV set and providing at
least two simultaneous video streams to allow for picture-in-picture
and to allow subscribers to watch a program on one channel while
recording a program on another channel. In the second configuration,
the AllVid equipment would act as a whole-home gateway, capable of
simultaneously communicating with multiple navigation devices within
the home, and providing at least six simultaneous video streams within
the home (which would allow picture-in-picture in three different
rooms), possibly through a modular system that could accommodate more
streams as necessary. We seek input on each of these configurations and
whether one of these configurations is more appropriate than the other,
or if there are other superior configurations that should be
considered.
26. Physical connection. The 100-BASE-TX Ethernet could act as the
physical layer technology used to connect the AllVid adapters with
navigation devices. 100-BASE-TX Ethernet operates at speeds adequate to
allow transfer of multiple high definition MPEG-2 signals (nominally 15
Mbps each), and it has developed as a de facto connection for data
transmission. Current and next-generation audio-visual equipment has
and will continue to include Ethernet ports for connectivity for the
foreseeable future. Therefore, adoption of Ethernet as the physical
connection for AllVid adapters and navigation devices could enable
compatibility with existing devices. In addition, the ubiquity of
Ethernet could allow the AllVid adapter and navigation device
manufacturers to defray costs to a large extent. We seek comment on
these predictions. We seek comment on whether using Ethernet for the
physical connection would be limiting if Internet video were not passed
through the AllVid adapter. We also seek comment on any other
[[Page 27269]]
physical connectors (for example, Multimedia over Coaxial Cable
(``MoCA'')) that could serve as the bridge between AllVid adapters and
retail navigation devices, or whether the Commission would need to
mandate a physical layer technology at all.
27. Communication Protocol. Internet Protocol (``IP'') could act as
the communication protocol between the AllVid adapter and navigation
devices. Like Ethernet, IP is the de facto standard protocol for data
transmission, and current and next-generation audio-visual equipment is
capable of handling IP communication. As a widely adopted protocol, IP
is familiar to hardware and software developers, which would allow the
retail market to flourish for smart video devices. We seek comment on
whether IP would be the best choice for an AllVid communication
protocol. We also seek comment on any other communication protocols
that could serve as a standardized communication protocol between
AllVid adapters and retail navigation devices.
28. Encryption and Authentication. Both the MPAA and CableLabs have
approved digital transmission content protection over Internet protocol
(``DTCP-IP'') technology as an acceptable method of content encryption
to prevent content theft, and it is the content protection scheme used
in the Digital Living Network Alliance (``DLNA'') standard. For these
reasons, we believe that the DTCP-IP standard would be a logical choice
for content encryption and device authentication, and we seek comment
on that assessment. We also seek comment on whether it would be
practical to give each navigation device its own specific key. We
believe that this could prevent a situation in which entire model
classes of navigation devices would need to be deauthorized in the
event that a key were compromised. Should the Commission select a party
to administer the public key database in the same manner that the
Commission handled the white spaces database, or would the relevant
industry parties be able to agree on a third party to handle
maintenance of a public key database? In the event that commenters are
in favor of a third party maintaining the public key database, we seek
proposals regarding parties that can handle that task. We seek comment
on the ideas presented here with respect to encryption and
authentication. We seek comment also on any other proposals that could
serve the encryption and authentication functions in an AllVid-
connected home network.
29. Content Ordering and Billing. At least one party has indicated
that MVPDs need the ability to verify that their subscribers have
actually ordered pay-per-view and subscription content. What specific
methods could the AllVid and navigation device use to facilitate
ordering of pay-per-view and subscription content? We envision that the
AllVid adapter would perform video rendering for the purpose of
verifying a subscriber's purchase of MVPD content such as Video on
Demand (``VOD'') or a subscription service. We seek comment on these
issues, including any other proposals that would allow MVPDs to verify
that a subscriber wishes to purchase a specific MVPD service.
30. Service Discovery. TiVo suggests that Universal Plug and Play
(``uPnP'') protocols would be ``an obvious technology choice for
service discovery.'' TiVo explains that the only protocols that the
Commission would need to adopt for service discovery are ``gateway
advertisement, which allows a gateway to announce its presence to
consumer devices on the home network, and service browsing, in which a
consumer device can browse and access the available services on the
gateway.'' We seek comment on TiVo's proposal and invite commenters to
propose any other protocols that would allow a navigation device to
discover MVPD content on a home network with an AllVid adapter. For
example, to achieve the efficiencies that come with switched-digital
video, devices attached to a cable network need to inform the cable
headend when a subscriber stops watching a program. What protocols
would be necessary for the AllVid adapter to query whether the
navigation device still requires access to the program stream?
31. Content Encoding. A recent controversy over audio-visual codec
support has led to heightened awareness about the issue of content
encoding. Ideally, navigation devices should be designed to decode
content that has been encoded in a number of specified formats and the
AllVid adapter should be designed to transfer content in at least one
of those formats. This would allow MVPDs to encode their content as
they wish without the need for the AllVid adapter to transcode the
content, which could make the AllVid adapter more expensive and less
energy efficient. We seek comment on whether the Commission would need
to specify the formats, and, if so, on the audio-visual codecs that the
Commission should require navigation devices to handle.
32. Intellectual Property. The Commission seeks comment on
intellectual property issues related to proposed standards for the
AllVid adapter. How long would it take for the necessary standards to
be developed, and what costs would be involved? Would a requirement
that all rights holders license their relevant intellectual property on
reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms allow the market to flourish and
provide adequate incentives for innovation? Does the Commission have
the legal authority to mandate such terms? We seek comment on whether
patent pools exist for any technologies that might be adopted. We seek
comment on the licensing fees charged by patent holders for these
technologies, and which parties hold those rights. We also seek comment
on any other intellectual property issues relevant to the AllVid
concept.
33. Other Issues. The Commission also seeks comment on any
additional standardization work that would be necessary to implement
the AllVid regime. For example, we seek comment on how the AllVid
adapter should resolve resource conflicts. If a subscriber's home is
equipped to handle six separate video streams and seven people in the
home want to watch programming on seven different devices, which
devices take precedence? Should the most recent device to make a
request have the ability to override the conflict and choose which
device to exclude? We seek comment on innovative ways to resolve device
conflicts.
34. Several commenters have highlighted issues regarding how a home
network would handle emergency alert system (``EAS'') messages, closed
captioning data, and MVPD parental controls. We note that there are
existing standards to transmit closed captioning data and parental
control data for broadcast television and unencrypted cable television.
We seek comment on whether these standards can be adapted readily to
perform these functions in the AllVid regime or whether new standards
development is necessary. We note that development of a next generation
EAS system is underway and seek comment on how EAS messages formatted
in the Common Alerting Protocol could be carried in the AllVid system
and received by devices. CEA and the Society of Cable
Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE) have both adopted standards for the
carrying of EAS within the home network. We seek comment on what
additional standards work is necessary to assure that retail devices
receive and display EAS messages.
35. We seek comment also on whether navigation devices in the
AllVid system should include over-the-air ATSC tuners. The Commission's
rules require
[[Page 27270]]
unidirectional digital cable devices to include an ATSC tuner. In the
Second Report and Order, the Commission concluded that ``the public has
come to understand that television receivers labeled or marketed as
`cable ready' universally include the capability of receiving over-the-
air broadcast service.'' Would consumers similarly expect this
equipment to receive over-the-air broadcast service? Does the
Commission have the authority under the All-Channel Receiver Act to
impose such a requirement?
36. We seek comment also on differences in delivery technology that
might require specific MVPD providers to include functionality beyond
what is necessary for conditional access, provisioning, reception, and
decoding of the signal. For example, given the DBS industry's
inherently one-way distribution model, DISH Network and DIRECTV have
indicated that home gateway devices for DBS would need to include hard
drives for video caching to allow their subscribers to view VOD
programming instantly and might need to include additional
``intelligence.'' We seek proposals on any network-specific functions
that may need to be included in particular operators' AllVid adapters.
We also seek comment on how we could enable evolution of the AllVid
system, with respect to both the components of the device and the
output standards, in order to accommodate technological innovation over
time. Finally, we seek comment on any other issues regarding the AllVid
regime and specific proposals that would allow the Commission to
resolve those issues.
37. AllVid Support Requirements. The National Broadband Plan calls
for Commission action to require MVPDs who offer digital navigation
devices for lease to be prepared to offer AllVid equipment to their
subscribers by December 31, 2012. We seek comment on that deadline,
including measures that would be effective in enforcing it. To
encourage MVPDs to adhere to this deadline, should the Commission take
supplemental measures that would apply to MVPDs that are unable to
deploy AllVid equipment to all new subscribers and to any subscribers
who request AllVid equipment after this deadline (such as denying
extensions of certain CableCARD waivers), or do the Commission's
existing enforcement mechanisms, which allow the imposition of
forfeitures, provide sufficient incentives for MVPDs to meet such a
deadline? How can the Commission prevent an overabundance of waiver
requests similar to the ones filed in response to the integration ban,
which some have argued have brought about policymaking by waiver?
38. In concept, the AllVid approach would provide a successor
technology to CableCARD. While the Commission is separately proposing
steps to ameliorate shortcomings in the retail market for CableCARD
devices in the interim, we anticipate that AllVid devices could over
time replace CableCARD devices on retail shelves. Accordingly, we seek
comment on whether the Commission should consider eliminating its
CableCARD rules, and if so, the appropriate date for such a change. We
seek comment on consumer expectations regarding the lifespan of their
devices, and whether the AllVid approach or any other approach could be
implemented in a way that limits the number of CableCARD devices that
become obsolete.
39. Navigation Device Economics. Certain parties suggest that a
retail market for navigation devices may be destined to fail because
consumers are not interested in owning navigation devices. We seek
comment on this assessment, including whether consumers prefer to lease
at government-regulated ``cost-plus'' rates, whether consumers wish to
avoid the risk of obsolescence of navigation devices, and whether
consumers' inability to ``port'' a retail navigation device when he or
she changes MVPDs limits the attractiveness of the retail option. The
cable industry has adopted the leasing model, charging customers a
monthly fee that allows consumers to avoid a larger upfront cost
entailed by a retail purchase. To evaluate the leasing versus retail
equipment models, we seek data on consumer behavior when faced with a
lease versus purchase decision, concerning navigation devices and
analogous consumer electronic devices. We expect that MVPDs will want
to continue to offer devices for lease or sale that provide greater
functionality than an AllVid adapter. Should we require those devices
to attach to the AllVid network, through an adapter? How would our
decision on whether operator-provided navigation devices must commonly
rely on the AllVid network affect the economics of the retail and
leasing markets?
40. What are consumer expectations with respect to ``navigation
devices?'' Traditionally, the Commission and interested parties have
considered the term navigation devices to include televisions, set-top
boxes (including DVRs), and home theater computers. Do these devices
comprise the universe of navigation devices, and if not, what other
devices could perform navigation device functions? Are there specific
minimum functions that a navigation device needs to perform? Should
there be different classifications of navigation devices, and if so,
should the Commission dictate the minimum functionality requirements of
specific classes? What steps can the Commission take to increase
economic and energy efficiencies that will allow consumers to connect
fewer devices to their television display by consolidating
functionality into one device?
41. Would MVPDs be at an advantage in providing set-top boxes
because they could provide home installation whereas consumers
typically would have to install devices purchased in the retail market
themselves? Do MVPDs earn a profit on home installations or, if not,
would self-installations of retail devices by MVPD customers save MVPDs
money? We seek comment also on the assertion that the cost of bringing
navigation device functionality into television sets exceeds what
consumers are willing to pay at retail. We seek data on consumer
purchasing behavior regarding home entertainment equipment. To what
extent are consumers willing to pay for additional functionalities in
the equipment they purchase? Would the AllVid concept change the
economics of consumer preferences? How much would an AllVid adapter
cost? How much would it cost to add AllVid compatibility to a
navigation device? Should the cost of an AllVid adapter and charges for
installation by the MVPD be calculated according to the Commission's
rate regulation rules under section 76.923 in rate-regulated
communities? Finally, we seek comment on whether economic or
technological factors dictate that AllVid adapters would have to be
provided by the MVPD, or whether AllVid adapters could be sold at
retail, as NCTA has suggested in the past.
42. Alternative Proposals. In response to NBP PN 27,
several MVPDs expressed reservations about a ``home gateway''
technology mandate. These commenters suggest that the Commission should
encourage market-driven negotiations and standards development to
achieve the goals of section 629. In this vein, we seek alternative
proposals to the AllVid concept that could lead to the implementation
of a competitive market solution for smart video devices by December
31, 2012. We also seek input on whether the movement of functions away
from navigation devices and into the cloud or network might represent a
viable alternative. How would the AllVid proposal affect the
development of downloadable security? Are there specific incentives
that the Commission
[[Page 27271]]
could create that would expedite market negotiations and address the
shortcomings of the current CableCARD regime discussed above?
43. Other Issues. Content Presentation. Much of the innovation in
television reception devices is related to easy-to-use graphical user
interfaces; device manufacturers distinguish their products from one
another by providing better user experiences. MVPDs argue, however,
that a graphical user interface that is standard across its footprint
makes consumer education and support easier; they also state that
marketing agreements often require the MVPD to provide certain content
within the electronic program guide. Providers also argue that multiple
graphical user interfaces would create customer confusion with regard
to whom subscribers should call with questions about problems
associated with the user interface, service, and hardware
compatibility. What steps should be taken to minimize any potential for
confusion with regard to the appropriate provider of customer service
for retail device product performance, warranty, and service-related
issues? Given the inherent conflict between innovation and
standardization, we seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt
rules governing the way in which MVPD content is presented. What steps
should be taken to protect agreements between MVPDs and content
providers? Is there a way to balance MVPDs' interests in improved
customer service and adherence to their marketing contracts against the
consumer benefits that result from electronics manufacturers
differentiating their products from competitors'? We seek comment on
the best way to resolve this issue.
44. We also seek comment on intellectual property issues associated
with electronic programming guides. The Consumer Electronics
Association asserts that consumers already pay for programming guide
data as part of their subscription fees, that the data is not subject
to intellectual property protection, and that therefore MVPDs should
provide programming guide data in a form that would allow competitive
devices to display the data as they wish. MVPDs disagree, arguing that
the intellectual property issues related to electronic programming
guide presentation and data are more complex than the Consumer
Electronics Association suggests. In addition to seeking comment on the
intellectual property issues, we seek specific proposals for solutions
or reasonable compromises that could address those issues and achieve
the objectives of this proceeding. For example, would it be reasonable
for MVPDs to charge separately for guide data, thereby saving
subscribers who use third-party data from having to pay for the same
data twice?
45. Authority. The DC Circuit has found that section 629 gives the
Commission broad discretion to adopt regulations to assure a
competitive market for navigation devices. Throughout this proceeding,
certain parties have argued that the Commission lacks the authority to
require MVPDs to disaggregate their programming guides and allow retail
devices to ``repackage'' their content. Section 629 directs the
Commission to adopt regulations to assure the retail commercial
availability of navigation devices, and the DC Circuit's review has
been ``particularly deferential'' in cases where the ``FCC must make
judgments about future market behavior with respect to a brand-new
technology.'' We seek further comment on our authority under section
629 of the Act.
IV. Procedural Matters
46. Ex Parte Rules. This is an exempt proceeding in which ex parte
presentations are permitted (except during the Sunshine Agenda period)
and need not be disclosed.
47. Filing Requirements. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may
file comments on or before July 13, 2010; reply comments are due on or
before August 12, 2010. Comments may be filed using: (1) The
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal
Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
(1998).
48. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or
the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
49. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
50. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
51. Effective December 28, 2009, all hand-delivered or messenger-
delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325,
Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building. The filing hours are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
52. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
53. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
54. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
55. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington,
DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents
will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe
Acrobat.
56. Accessibility Information. To request information in accessible
formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and
Braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC's Consumer
and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-
0432 (TTY). This document can also be downloaded in Word and Portable
Document Format (PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov.
57. Additional Information. For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Steven Broeckaert, Steven.Broeckaert@fcc.gov,
Brendan Murray, Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Policy
Division, (202) 418-2120, or Alison Neplokh, Alison.Neplokh@fcc.gov, of
the Media Bureau, Engineering Division, (202) 418-1083.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11388 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P