Note to FCC: Leave Cable Standards Alone

I have to wonder why the FCC is “working” on new technology? Is that their mission? Didn’t CableCard come from the FCC and how’s that working out? (yes, it does “work”, but is limited)

Section 629 of the Communications Act - “Congress directed the [FCC] to foster a competitive retail market for navigation devices used by consumers to access the full range of services offered by MVPDs, and to access that programming and those services through manufacturers, retailers and other vendors not affiliated with any MVPD” – that is a really BROAD statement and what does “foster” really mean?

I have the ability to view cable and internet content NOW. There is support for on-demand content. While I’d like a more seamless, IP-based solution, I’m not sure forcing the cable companies into this level of integration will ever fly. There are many complex legal and technical issues surrounding this proposal. The industry (NCTA) will support AllVid as well as they’ve supported CableCard - Just try to order one!

“It is essential for the Commission to break down the wall separating the home network from [pay TV] networks — not just poke a few holes in it, or rely on progress on the peripheries,” AllVid Tech Company Alliance wrote to the FCC on Feb. 16, 2011 – is it REALLY “essential” that the FCC REQUIRE cable companies to comply with this?

“Sony/Google are asking the [FCC] to ignore copyright, patent, trademark, contract privity, licensing, and other legal rights and limitations that have been thoroughly documented,” said the NCTA to the FCC in February - didn’t we wait long enough (and still suffering the pain) for TRUE HD TV @ 1080p courtesy of HDCP? Security and encryption are NOT simple nor cheap. EVERYTHING would have to be re-designed, tested and validated.

While I understand many NASA rocket launches and missions failed catastrophically even after the best efforts were put forth before most were tremendous accomplishments, I get concerned about the government doing much more than running the military and possibly NASA. Let them get the US Postal system, Social Security/Medicare solvent, THEN maybe they can try to do some good elsewhere – WHEN we can afford it. Consider that the Feds have TOTALLY broken the housing industry w/FreddieMac,  FannieMay, & HUD - AND all attempts to correct the mess has failed so far. Yes, wall street leveraged the bad lending policy and made it worse. Now, Congress is about to BAN Edison’s light bulb! What’s next?

In March, Dataninja writes in response to the Engadget article on 2/18: “All this is going to do is slow down and stifle new products on TV. When cable companies developed onDemand and pay per view, they only had to work with 3 vendors to implement it. We see how fast everyone has jumped on the Tru2Way wagon to huh? It’s been a standard for what? 4 years and NOBODY makes a box.” – this person seems to have a good point.

I love technology, BUT just because something can be done, does NOT always mean it should be done. Generally, the best innovation is born from necessity and the free market and NOT from government intervention. Always keep in mind the law of unintended consequences.

Amen, brother.

Ray,

While I agree with what you are saying about the government getting out of the way and letting the requirements of the content consumers drive the industry, but technically I believe the more appropriate protection scheme they would use for this type of transmission medium would be DTCP-IP and not HDCP.  HDCP would require very tight timing characteristics and would impose too much overhead with all of the key exchanges and associated handshaking than what the Internet could provide.  Additionally, with the advent of technologies like UltraViolet, the “non-AllVid” approach provides content providers with a more consistent way to get content to a wider range of devices (and subscribers) in a more consistent way without having to support multiple technology platforms or using a particular DRM solution.

I also agree with you that it will take quite a while for the cable infrastructures, supply chain agreements, and business models to change to support a “non-CableCARD” model.  There is a lot at stake when modifying the business and “consumer comfort zone” aspects of premium content and video on demand services for the masses.  Look at all of the trouble we had when we went to an all ATSC platform for OTA here in the US.  It amazed me how many families could not handle the transition.  IF there were a way to eliminate set top boxes and all of the “under-designed” digital cable adapters needed today, that would be a good thing.  If it requires a mandate of some kind, at least let if only be valid for a limited lifespan (only required for a certain period moving forward).  That might force the providers to change and move the industry forward now while still easing the pain of the transition.

I think the underlying issue is how do those of us who can handle moving forward without tuners and CableCARDs get the content we need when we want it without being precluded from getting it because of the current legacy systems and business models.  Will it happen without a mandate of some kind?  It appears that way since we have made so much progress already, but how long will it take to break down those current barriers to innovation?  I would rather see the FCC mandate removing bandwidth caps than mandating putting in a platform that would force us into what will be yet another legacy system in just a few years.  I think the FCC should recommend a standardized way to transition to an all-IP delivery model with something like AllVid so we can move forward, but I also think they need to allow the industry to expand on the ways we can access and consume that content.  We, the subscribers, need to take the industry where we want it to go and not have the government require the providers to put something into place that would preclude the continuation of the IP-only path we are on already.  I guess that is my roundabout way of saying I agree the government should not mandate AllVid, but I do think they should agree on a standardized way of meeting the requirements an AllVid solution provides for those business models that still need it.

Regards,

  =D-

Derek R. Flickinger
Interactive Homes, Inc.

Derek,

Great points. We can always count on your knowledgeable and balanced thoughts.

Thanks for the clarification and interesting explanation on DTCP-IP although I wasn’t suggesting HDCP in this case, but only to illustrate an analogous concept.

I agree the FCC should probably have a much lighter touch helping to define high-level standards rather than trying to “legislate morality” at such a low level.

Many times it’s merely the THREAT of FCC mandates, that motivates an industry solution that produces a win-win solution.
However, the FCC MUST allow industry to participate in the formulation of law to ensure “buy in” and full compliance which minimizes the unintended negative side effects.

While consumers “pay the bills” (in the long run), private industry (and their shareholders) take the up-front risk – which can be HUGE (and many fail w/out a federal bailout).
Generally, new products/services are offered to differentiate for competitive advantage which drives new technology development – NOT the heavy hand of Big Brother.
Standardized protocols mainly benefit the consumer (and sometimes the provider to a lesser degree), while proprietary solutions generally generate greater revenue and ROI (e.g., IBM PC versus Apple anything).
You can make strong arguments for standards that allow industries to grow while encouraging competition AND for proprietary/patented designs that encourage greater risk taking by private companies to assemble large infrastructure with the promise of re-occurring revenue in the long term.

While consumers “own” the air waves (FCC leases the spectrum), the cable industry has enjoyed less control than broadcast (I suppose), but where is the OTA industry now?
At the same time, while I am no fan of high monthly “cable” rates and paying for services I’ll never use, someone has to pay for all that Fiber to the home!

Keep in mind that businesses MUST be allowed to make profits which provide incentive to take risk in the first place and anyone with stock market investments for retirement, pensions, or otherwise, participates in those capital gains in the long term.