sign in sign up
<<
Home , AllVid, CableCARD

27264 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules

531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, CableCARD if the MVPD allows its • Federal Communications 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, subscribers to self-install operator- Commission’s Web site: http:// 571, 572, 573. leased set-top boxes; www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 4. Amend § 76.640 by revising (3) Provide a multi-stream CableCARD instructions for submitting comments. paragraph (b)(4)(ii) to read as follows: to any subscriber who requests one; and • People with Disabilities: Contact (4) With respect to professional the FCC to request reasonable § 76.640 Support for unidirectional digital installations, ensure that the technician accommodations (accessible format cable products on systems. arrives with no fewer than the number documents, sign language interpreters, * * * * * of requested by the CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] (b) * * * customer. or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– (4) * * * [FR Doc. 2010–11387 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 418–0432. (ii) Include both: For detailed instructions for submitting (A) A DVI or HDMI interface and BILLING CODE 6712–01–P (B) An IEEE 1394, Ethernet, or USB comments and additional information 3.0 interface, or WiFi connectivity on all on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of high definition set-top boxes acquired FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS this document. by a cable operator for distribution to COMMISSION customers. Effective [Date to be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 47 CFR Part 76 determined in the final rule], this additional information on this interface must, at a minimum: proceeding, contact Brendan Murray, [MB Docket No. 10–91; CS Docket No. 97– [email protected], of the Media (1) Allow another device to transmit 80; PP Docket No. 00–67; FCC 10–60] remote control commands via the same Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–2120 interface and Video Device Competition; or Alison Neplokh, (2) Deliver video in an industry Implementation of Section 304 of the [email protected], of the Media standard format. Telecommunications Act of 1996: Bureau, Engineering Division, (202) 418–1083. * * * * * Commercial Availability of Navigation 5. Amend § 76.1204 by revising Devices; Compatibility Between Cable SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: Systems and Consumer Electronics summary of the Commission’s Notice of Equipment Inquiry (NOI), FCC 10–60, adopted and § 76.1204 Availability of equipment released on April 21, 2010. The full text performing or security AGENCY: Federal Communications of this document is available for public functions. Commission. inspection and copying during regular (a) * * * ACTION: Notice of inquiry. business hours in the FCC Reference (2) The foregoing requirement shall Center, Federal Communications not apply SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY– (i) With respect to unidirectional set- Commission seeks comment on ways to A257, Washington, DC 20554. These top boxes without recording unleash competition in the retail market documents will also be available via functionality; or for smart set-top video devices that are ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (ii) To a multichannel video compatible with all multichannel video (Documents will be available programming distributor that supports programming distributor (‘‘MVPD’’) electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ the active use by subscribers of services. The goal of this proceeding is or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text navigation devices that: to better accomplish the intent of may be purchased from the (A) Operate throughout the Congress as set forth in section 629 of Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th continental United States, and the Communications Act of 1934, as Street, SW., Room CY–B402, (B) Are available from retail outlets amended. In particular, we wish to Washington, DC 20554. To request this and other vendors throughout the explore the potential for allowing any document in accessible formats United States that are not affiliated with electronics manufacturer to offer smart (computer diskettes, large print, audio the owner or operator of the video devices at retail that can be used recording, and Braille), send an e-mail multichannel video programming with the services of any MVPD and to [email protected] or call the system. without the need to coordinate or Commission’s Consumer and * * * * * negotiate with MVPDs. We believe that Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 6. Revise § 76.1205 to read as follows: this could foster a competitive retail 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 market in smart video devices to spur § 76.1205 CableCARD support. (TTY). investment and innovation, increase (a) Technical information concerning consumer choice, allow unfettered Summary of the Notice of Inquiry interface parameters that are needed to innovation in MVPD delivery platforms, I. Introduction permit navigation devices to operate and encourage wider broadband use and 1. In this Notice of Inquiry, the with multichannel video programming adoption. systems shall be provided by the system Commission seeks comment on specific DATES: operator upon request in a timely Comments for this proceeding steps we can take to unleash manner. are due on or before July 13, 2010; reply competition in the retail market for (b) A multichannel video comments are due on or before August smart, set-top video devices (‘‘smart programming provider that is subject to 12, 2010. video devices’’) that are compatible with the requirements of § 76.1204(a)(1) ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, all multichannel video programming must: identified by MB Docket No. 10–91; CS distributor (‘‘MVPD’’) services. Our goal (1) Include the charge for the Docket No. 97–80; and PP Docket No. in this proceeding is to better effectuate CableCARD as a separate line item in 00–67, by any of the following methods: the intent of Congress as set forth in the subscriber’s bill; • Federal eRulemaking Portal: section 629 of the Communications Act (2) Provide the means to allow http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the of 1934, as amended. In particular, we subscribers to self-install the instructions for submitting comments. wish to explore the potential for

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:05 May 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM 14MYP1 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27265

allowing any electronics manufacturer multichannel video programming and Understanding (‘‘MOU’’), with certain to offer smart video devices at retail that other services offered over multichannel modifications. The MOU prescribed the can be used with the services of any video programming systems.’’ In technical standards for ‘‘CableCARD’’ MVPD and without the need to enacting the section, Congress pointed compatibility. The CableCARD is a coordinate or negotiate with MVPDs. to the vigorous retail market for security device provided by an MVPD, We believe that this could foster a customer premises equipment (‘‘CPE’’) which can be inserted into a set-top box competitive retail market in smart video used with the telephone network and or television set bought by a consumer devices to spur investment and sought to a similarly vigorous in the retail market and enable the innovation, increase consumer choice, market for devices used with MVPD consumer’s television to display MVPD allow unfettered innovation in MVPD services. encrypted video programming. To delivery platforms, and encourage wider 5. Congress was prescient in enacting ensure adequate support by MVPDs for broadband use and adoption. section 629 in 1996. In analog cable CableCARDs, the Commission 2. More specifically, we introduce the systems, which were common prohibited MVPDs from integrating the concept of an adapter that could act throughout the 1990s, most consumers security function into set-top boxes they either as a small ‘‘set-back’’ device for could connect their ‘‘cable ready’’ video lease to consumers, thus forcing MVPDs connection to a single smart video cassette recorders and television sets to rely on CableCARDs as well. This device or as a gateway allowing all directly to a cable operator’s system ‘‘integration ban’’ was initially set to go consumer electronics devices in the without the need for any other into effect on January 1, 2005, but that home to access multichannel video equipment. During that time, many date was later extended to July 1, 2007. programming services. Unlike the people became accustomed to and 8. The Commission’s rules require existing cable-centric CableCARD appreciated the convenience of the cable operators to support only one-way technology, this adapter could make ‘‘plug and play’’ aspect of connecting a plug-and-play capability for retail possible the development and marketing coaxial cable from the wall directly into CableCARD devices. This largely of smart video devices that attach to any a television set to receive their video reflects the absence of a proven market MVPD service anywhere in the United programming service. But this analog for two-way services when negotiations States, which could greatly enhance the ‘‘plug and play’’ technology was unable began, and a desire within the industry incentives for manufacturers to enter the to support advancements in video to achieve consensus on how to assure retail market. As conceived, the adapter delivery technology such as digital access to the most basic services first would communicate with the MVPD cable, bidirectional video services such and not await the conclusion of service, performing the tuning and as pay-per-view, and the emergence of negotiations regarding access to new security decryption functions that may competitive services from Direct services that might be introduced later. be specific to a particular MVPD; the Broadcast Satellite (‘‘DBS’’) providers, Accordingly, the Commission’s rules do smart video device would perform which were widely available by 2000. not require cable operators to provide navigation functions, including These new developments required the access for retail devices to two-way presentation of programming guides and use of more advanced encryption and services such as interactive program search functionality. The Commission encoding techniques and bidirectional guides, pay-per-view, or video-on- seeks comment on this concept. We also communication, among other functions, demand services, which were nascent invite any alternative proposals that and the MVPDs built this capability into services in 2003 and would have would achieve the same objective of proprietary set-top boxes. required complex and lengthy technical eliminating barriers to entry in the retail 6. The Commission has adopted consideration. For that reason among market for smart video devices that are regulations in response to the statutory others, retail CableCARD devices have compatible with all MVPD services. mandate in section 629 to ensure retail not been able to offer all of the cable 3. The Commission envisions that the competition in the ‘‘navigation device’’ services available to subscribers who proposal adopted in this proceeding market. Those regulations have enabled lease their set-top boxes from the cable would be a successor technology to competitors such as TiVo and Moxi to operator. This is partially responsible CableCARD. We predict that smart enter the market. However, the for the failure of the CableCARD video devices built to new standards Commission’s rules as they currently solution to create a strong retail market that would be adopted through this exist have yet to realize Congress’ for navigation devices. proceeding would eventually replace charge to develop a fully competitive 9. Furthermore, although the CableCARD devices on retail shelves. retail market. CableCARD rules nominally apply to all Accordingly, in this Notice of Inquiry 7. The Commission adopted its first MVPDs, the Commission exempted the Commission also seeks comment on Report and Order, 63 FR 38089, to MVPDs that operate throughout the the future of the CableCARD regime. We implement section 629 in 1998. The United States and offer devices for retail are separately releasing a Notice of Report and Order required MVPDs to sale through unaffiliated vendors. In Proposed Rulemaking to address a make available a conditional access practice, this means that DBS operators number of CableCARD implementation element separate from the basic are not subject to these rules. More issues pending the completion of a navigation device, in order to permit recent entrant AT&T does not provide successor regime. unaffiliated manufacturers and retailers CableCARD devices, and Verizon to manufacture and market navigation supports CableCARDs to a limited II. Background devices while allowing MVPDs to retain extent, but not for its advanced IP 4. In the Telecommunications Act of control over their system security. The services. The Commission also has 1996, Congress added section 629 to the technical details of this conditional given numerous integration ban waivers Communications Act. Section 629 access element were to be worked out in to cable operators who have directed the Commission to adopt industry negotiations. In 2003, the demonstrated good cause for waiver, regulations to ensure the commercial Commission adopted standards on such as cable operators in financial availability of navigation devices used which the National Cable and distress and cable operators who have by consumers to access services from Telecommunications Association and upgraded their systems to all-digital. MVPDs. Section 629 covers ‘‘equipment the Consumer Electronics Association While numerous, these integration ban used by consumers to access had agreed in a Memorandum of waivers involve a de minimis number of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:05 May 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 market as directed by Congress. As an consumers may need to upgrade or Commission also started granting alternative, we seek to explore the replace their devices to maintain waivers for low-cost, limited capability potential for fulfilling this statutory compatibility with those delivery set-top boxes and, although these directive by providing consumer platforms, even if the device is still waivers will result in more than a de electronics manufacturers with the physically sound. It is impractical to minimis number of subscribers ability to build smart video navigation expect consumers to spend hundreds of receiving these boxes, these boxes are devices that can access MVPD content dollars to replace their television sets or able to access only one-way services and regardless of the delivery technology the set-top boxes to accommodate each provide a substantial public interest provider employs and to ensure that delivery innovation. A subscriber can benefit by significantly reducing costs to necessary licensing agreements do not avoid that risk by renting an HD set-top consumers for these low-end services. contain contractual terms that limit the box from a cable operator for an average 10. Unfortunately, the Commission’s functionality of the devices. Although cost of $8.22 per month. This disparity efforts to date have not led to a robustly is designed to be a two-way can be expected to perpetuate reliance competitive retail market for navigation solution for traditional cable operators, on cable operators’ set-top leasing devices that connect to subscription it requires manufacturers to sign a model and undermine development of a video services. Most cable subscribers license agreement that contains vigorous retail market in navigation continue to use the traditional set-top limitations that may hinder innovation. boxes leased from their cable operator. devices even if tru2way is successfully For example, the agreement limits a deployed. Although following adoption of the device’s ability to integrate video from CableCARD rules some television multiple sources into a consistent 14. On December 3, 2009, the manufacturers sold unidirectional viewing experience by limiting the Commission’s Omnibus Broadband digital cable-ready products (‘‘UDCPs’’), presentation and content of a tru2way Initiative (‘‘OBI’’) released a Public most manufactures have abandoned the device’s graphical user interface. This Notice (‘‘NBP PN #27’’) seeking technology. Indeed, since July 1, 2007, could prevent a tru2way device from comment on four issues related to the cable operators have deployed only searching a consumer’s computer, DVR, ability of manufacturers to compete and 456,000 CableCARDs for installation in Netflix account, and cable-operator- innovate in the video device market. retail devices, compared with their provided offerings for Specifically, the Public Notice sought deployment of more than 17.7 million a particular film or for films that include comment on (i) the technological and leased devices pre-equipped with the consumer’s favorite actor. market-based limitations that prevent CableCARDs since the integration ban Furthermore, tru2way is an unworkable retail devices from accessing all types of went into effect. Furthermore, while 605 solution for DBS and other non-cable content; (ii) whether a retail market for UDCP models have been certified or providers. Even service from a cable network-agnostic video devices could verified for use with CableCARDs, only provider like Verizon, which provides spur broadband use and adoption and 37 of those certifications have occurred most of its video using the same QAM achieve the goals of section 629; (iii) since the integration ban took effect in delivery technology as traditional cable whether the home broadband service July 2007. This indicates that, with the operators, but uses Internet Protocol model could be adapted to provide for exceptions of TiVo, Moxi, and (‘‘IP’’) for interactive functions such as audio-visual device connectivity; and CableCARD-equipped home theater video-on-demand, currently is not (iv) what obstacles may hinder computers, retail device manufacturers compatible with tru2way. Finally, the convergence of internet and MVPD- have abandoned CableCARD technology fact that the DBS providers are the provided video. Commenters generally before any substantial benefits of the second and third largest MVPDs, agreed that the technological limitations integration ban could be realized. that prevent devices from accessing all 11. The Commission anticipated that continue to gain market share, and yet types of content can be traced to the the parties to the MOU would negotiate are not subject to the integration ban different conditional access schemes, a further agreement to achieve two-way also may be impeding the development compatibility, using either a software- of a vibrant retail market by artificially delivery technologies, and platforms based or hardware-based solution. limiting the market for competitive that MVPDs use. Commenters expressed When the Commission realized in June retail devices. Despite the importance of some disagreement about whether 2007 that negotiations were not leading being able to expand the retail market to network-agnostic video devices would to an agreement for two-way reach the DBS providers’ networks, spur broadband use and adoption, but compatibility between consumer most consumer electronics generally agreed that true network electronics devices and cable systems, it manufacturers acknowledge that an agnosticism is a laudable goal for released a Third Further Notice of attempt to establish standards for navigation devices. Commenters also Proposed Rulemaking, 72 FR 40818, navigation devices that would work generally agreed that the home seeking comment on competing with each of the different delivery broadband service model could be proposals for two-way compatibility and technologies without some adapted to provide for audio-visual other related issues. In the wake of this intermediation would be impractical device connectivity, but some disagreed Third Further Notice of Proposed and prohibitively expensive. about the specific methods that should Rulemaking, the six largest cable 13. The approaches considered to date be used for such connectivity. Finally, operators and a number of consumer have a number of inherent limitations. commenters generally agreed that the electronics manufacturers negotiated an Both the one-way CableCARD and obstacles that hinder convergence of agreement for bidirectional tru2way approaches focus on television Internet and MVPD-provided video are compatibility that continues to rely and sets and digital video recorders (‘‘DVRs’’) divergent delivery technologies and build on CableCARDs by using a as the initial consumer device, with that content protection methods. Certain middleware-based solution called device housing security (through the commenters also cited business ‘‘tru2way.’’ CableCARD), tuning, and navigation practices that deter entry into the 12. We are not convinced that the functions. Yet delivery platforms market. NCTA recently filed a letter tru2way solution will assure the continue to evolve at a rapid pace. As expressing its members’ commitment to development of a commercial retail these delivery platforms evolve, a set of principles largely supportive of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:05 May 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM 14MYP1 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27267

our objectives in launching this adapter would be system-specific to a developed using divergent and rapidly proceeding. particular MVPD in order to developing network technologies communicate with its network. terminated in an adapter that presents a III. Discussion Innovations in a MVPDs’ delivery standardized Ethernet interface. 15. In this Notice of Inquiry, we seek technology might require substitution of 19. The RJ–11 interface requirement comment on ways to achieve the a new adapter but would not require the allowed the development of a vibrant objective that Congress established consumer to replace her smart video retail market for answering machines, nearly fifteen years ago. While MVPD device or other in-home equipment. cordless phones, fax machines, services have become far more robust in While the Commission seeks comment modems, and other customer-premises the intervening years, for the most part on this concept, we also encourage equipment used with the telephone the consumer experience with respect to commenters to present other proposals network. The requirement that the the equipment that is required to access that would remove barriers to the network terminate in a standardized those services has not. Consumers have establishment of a retail market for interface with no carrier-supplied shown limited interest in purchasing smart video devices compatible with all terminating device was implemented in retail devices that can access MVPD MVPD services. If commenters disagree the context of a single telephone services under our existing rules, and that the root problems involve limits on network that used a single, stable we believe that two fundamental defects device functionality and portability delivery technology. It was a workable in the current regime account for this across MVPDs, we invite them to and successful solution in that context reluctance. First, with few exceptions identify what they believe are the because our telephone network was retail navigation devices are unable to obstacles to a competitive retail market based on a nationwide standard. provide functionality beyond that in navigation devices and to propose available in devices that subscribers can 20. Broadband services differ from solutions. telephone service in two key respects lease from their providers and often are 17. The AllVid Concept. Ideally, the that have led to a significantly different unable to access many of the MVPD Commission’s all video (‘‘AllVid’’) approach. Multiple broadband operators services that leased set-top devices are solution would work for all MVPDs and provide services using divergent able to access. Second, as a general lead to a nationwide interoperability network technologies; and those matter a retail navigation device standard, much as Ethernet and the technologies are not static but are purchased for use with one MVPD’s IEEE 802.11 standards have led to rapidly developing. Numerous services cannot be used with the nationwide interoperability for services of a competing MVPD. We seek customer data networks while allowing broadband delivery technologies exist— comment on these premises, and we broadband service providers to deploy among them cable, digital subscriber ‘‘ ’’ invite commenters to offer other differing proprietary network line ( DSL ), satellite, wireless explanations for the failure of a retail technologies. The AllVid solution broadband, and optical fiber to the market for navigation devices to emerge. would be designed to accommodate any home. In each system, the operator 16. Assuming that these premises are delivery technology that an MVPD provides a customer with an interface in the main correct, we propose a chooses to use and allow MVPDs to device such as a that solution that could address these two continue unfettered innovation in video performs all of the network-specific fundamental problems and seek delivery, because the MVPD-provided functions and connects via an Ethernet comment on them. We believe that the AllVid adapter, rather than the port to a multitude of competitively concept discussed below could give consumer-owned smart video device, provided customer-premises devices device manufacturers the ability to would be responsible for all including computers, printers, game develop ‘‘smart’’ products that can communication with the MVPD. At the consoles, digital media devices, wireless access any service that an MVPD same time, it would allow consumer routers, and network storage devices. provides without the need to enter into electronics manufacturers to design to a This approach has promoted an restrictive license agreements with stable interface and to integrate multiple innovative and highly competitive retail MVPDs. The concept also could give functions within a retail device. This market for devices used with broadband device manufacturers the ability to approach would provide the necessary services. At the same time, because each develop smart video devices that can flexibility for consumer electronics operator terminates its service in an access MVPD programming regardless of manufacturers to develop new interface device that it can swap out as the delivery technology that the MVPD technologies, including combining needed to accommodate innovations in uses. Accordingly, we introduce and MVPD content with over-the-top video delivery technologies, this approach has seek comment on a model that would services (such as videos offered from, freed service providers to innovate in require MVPDs to provide a small, low- for example, Amazon, Hulu, iTunes, or their networks without changing the cost adapter that would connect to NetFlix), manipulating the channel Ethernet connection to which customers proprietary MVPD networks and would guide, providing more advanced attach their devices. For example, a DSL provide a for parental controls, providing new user provider can introduce a new, faster connection to televisions, DVRs, and interfaces, and integrating with mobile technology in its network and, if other smart video devices, as described devices. necessary, swap in a new DSL modem below. This adapter, a further 18. Two previous standardization that incorporates the new technology, development of the concept of the approaches help to illustrate how this without changing the customer interface ‘‘gateway device’’ recommended in solution could unleash competition and or requiring customers to replace Chapter 4 of the National Broadband innovation in equipment used with devices they use with the service. This Plan, would perform the conditional MVPD services, while allowing allows consumers to benefit from new access functions as well as tuning, unfettered innovation in the services and improved services without reception, and upstream communication themselves: (i) The Carterfone and incurring the cost of replacing devices as directed by the smart video device. Computer Inquiry decisions required they have purchased at retail—replacing The adapter and the smart video device that the telephone network be a single modem is more cost-effective would communicate with each other terminated in a standardized RJ–11 than replacing each device that accesses using a standard interface, but each interface; and (ii) broadband services broadband services.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:05 May 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 led to innovation, lower prices and Section, we also seek comment on success in the implementation of higher quality,’’ because retail devices standards for the adapters, with the Section 629 to date is that it was would be able to access the full array of understanding that these standards may modeled on the earlier telephone services offered by all MVPDs and to not encompass the entire universe service approach, rather than the integrate those services with other video necessary to develop and deploy AllVid second, broadband approach. As NCTA sources—something that today’s plug- adapters. has pointed out, the interface and-play devices and tru2way devices 25. AllVid Equipment. The AllVid requirement as it applies to telephone cannot do. More specifically, we believe equipment would be designed to service is not completely analogous. We that this new AllVid model could: (i) operate specifically with one MVPD and agree, and we believe that the approach Spur the development of a competitive offered through the MVPD’s preferred to assuring device compatibility with retail market in navigation devices, thus mechanism, whether leased or sold at broadband services may provide a better providing subscribers with viable retail, manufactured by one company or model for MVPD device compatibility. alternatives to leasing or buying a set- competitively. We foresee two possible MVPDs, like broadband providers, use top box from their MVPD, (ii) drive physical configurations for the AllVid divergent and rapidly developing down retail prices for devices used to equipment. In the first configuration, delivery technologies, and our access MVPD services without the AllVid equipment would be a small experience with the CableCARD regime increasing the prices of those services, ‘‘set-back’’ device, capable of indicates that a static implementation of (iii) encourage MVPDs to develop and communicating with one navigation section 629 that incorporates network- introduce innovative services without device or TV set and providing at least specific interface functions into the being inhibited by the need to consult two simultaneous video streams to navigation devices that consumers with navigation device manufacturers, allow for picture-in-picture and to allow purchase in the retail market is unlikely and (iv) encourage device manufacturers subscribers to watch a program on one to succeed. A more innovative, to develop and introduce innovative channel while recording a program on pragmatic, and long-term approach may smart video devices without being another channel. In the second be to separate those network interface deterred by the need to consult with configuration, the AllVid equipment functions from the consumer devices MVPDs. In the following section, we would act as a whole-home gateway, through the use of an adapter, as is the seek comment on a framework designed capable of simultaneously case with broadband services. to achieve those goals; we also communicating with multiple 22. The AllVid concept would follow encourage commenters to propose navigation devices within the home, the broadband approach. It would place alternative plans that could achieve the and providing at least six simultaneous the network-specific functions such as same goals. video streams within the home (which conditional access, provisioning, would allow picture-in-picture in three reception, and decoding of the signal in 24. AllVid Standards. The AllVid different rooms), possibly through a one small, inexpensive operator- adapter would perform only the modular system that could provided adapter, which could be either functions necessary to support devices accommodate more streams as (i) a set-back device—which today could connected to the home network, and necessary. We seek input on each of be as small as deck of cards—that should connect to home network these configurations and whether one of attaches to the back of a consumer’s devices using a nationally supported these configurations is more appropriate television set or set-top box, or (ii) a standard interface that is common than the other, or if there are other home gateway device that routes MVPD across MVPDs. We expect that an superior configurations that should be content throughout a subscriber’s home AllVid adapter could be inexpensive considered. network. The adapter would act as a and physically small but, as set forth 26. Physical connection. The 100– conduit to connect proprietary MVPD below, seek comment on those BASE–TX Ethernet could act as the networks with navigation devices, TV assumptions. We also envision that physical layer technology used to sets, and a broad range of other MVPDs would provide subscribers with connect the AllVid adapters with equipment in the home. The AllVid the AllVid adapters (included in the navigation devices. 100–BASE–TX adapter would communicate over open price of service, or for a nominal lease Ethernet operates at speeds adequate to standards widely used in home fee, or with the option to purchase), and allow transfer of multiple high communications protocols, as outlined that AllVid adapters would likely not be definition MPEG–2 signals (nominally below, enabling consumers to select and portable across carriers. We seek 15 Mbps each), and it has developed as access content through navigation comment on these expectations, as well a de facto connection for data devices of their choosing purchased in as on the specific elements we believe transmission. Current and next- a competitive retail market. MVPDs would be necessary to bring the concept generation audio-visual equipment has would, of course, be free to participate to fruition. For example, in a petition for and will continue to include Ethernet in the retail market by offering rulemaking filed in the wake of NBP PN ports for connectivity for the foreseeable navigation devices for sale or lease to #27, Public Knowledge suggests that an future. Therefore, adoption of Ethernet consumers, but those devices would be AllVid-type device would require as the physical connection for AllVid separate from the adapter and marketed ‘‘standards for (1) a physical connection, adapters and navigation devices could separately. (2) a communication protocol, (3) enable compatibility with existing 23. We believe that this model could authentication, (4) service discovery, devices. In addition, the ubiquity of unleash an expanding retail market for and (5) content encoding.’’ We seek Ethernet could allow the AllVid adapter innovative and portable smart video comment on Public Knowledge’s and navigation device manufacturers to devices and could also maintain proposal, as well as the list of functions defray costs to a large extent. We seek MVPDs’ freedom to innovate in and discussed in detail below that we comment on these predictions. We seek protect their networks. As we envision believe would be necessary to comment on whether using Ethernet for the AllVid concept, it could lead to implement the AllVid concept. We seek the physical connection would be ‘‘[c]ompetition in the manufacturing and comment on any other functions for limiting if Internet video were not distribution of consumer devices’’ as which standards would be necessary to passed through the AllVid adapter. We Congress envisioned, which ‘‘has always develop an AllVid adapter. In this also seek comment on any other

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:05 May 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM 14MYP1 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27269

physical connectors (for example, MVPDs need the ability to verify that adapter. How long would it take for the Multimedia over Coaxial Cable their subscribers have actually ordered necessary standards to be developed, (‘‘MoCA’’)) that could serve as the bridge pay-per-view and subscription content. and what costs would be involved? between AllVid adapters and retail What specific methods could the AllVid Would a requirement that all rights navigation devices, or whether the and navigation device use to facilitate holders license their relevant Commission would need to mandate a ordering of pay-per-view and intellectual property on reasonable and physical layer technology at all. subscription content? We envision that nondiscriminatory terms allow the 27. Communication Protocol. Internet the AllVid adapter would perform video market to flourish and provide adequate Protocol (‘‘IP’’) could act as the rendering for the purpose of verifying a incentives for innovation? Does the communication protocol between the subscriber’s purchase of MVPD content Commission have the legal authority to AllVid adapter and navigation devices. such as Video on Demand (‘‘VOD’’) or a mandate such terms? We seek comment Like Ethernet, IP is the de facto standard subscription service. We seek comment on whether patent pools exist for any protocol for data transmission, and on these issues, including any other technologies that might be adopted. We current and next-generation audio- proposals that would allow MVPDs to seek comment on the licensing fees visual equipment is capable of handling verify that a subscriber wishes to charged by patent holders for these IP communication. As a widely adopted purchase a specific MVPD service. technologies, and which parties hold protocol, IP is familiar to hardware and 30. Service Discovery. TiVo suggests those rights. We also seek comment on software developers, which would allow that Universal Plug and Play (‘‘uPnP’’) any other intellectual property issues the retail market to flourish for smart protocols would be ‘‘an obvious relevant to the AllVid concept. video devices. We seek comment on technology choice for service 33. Other Issues. The Commission whether IP would be the best choice for discovery.’’ TiVo explains that the only also seeks comment on any additional an AllVid communication protocol. We protocols that the Commission would standardization work that would be also seek comment on any other need to adopt for service discovery are necessary to implement the AllVid communication protocols that could ‘‘gateway advertisement, which allows a regime. For example, we seek comment serve as a standardized communication gateway to announce its presence to on how the AllVid adapter should protocol between AllVid adapters and consumer devices on the home network, resolve resource conflicts. If a retail navigation devices. and service browsing, in which a subscriber’s home is equipped to handle 28. Encryption and Authentication. consumer device can browse and access six separate video streams and seven Both the MPAA and CableLabs have the available services on the gateway.’’ people in the home want to watch approved digital transmission content We seek comment on TiVo’s proposal programming on seven different protection over Internet protocol and invite commenters to propose any devices, which devices take (‘‘DTCP–IP’’) technology as an other protocols that would allow a precedence? Should the most recent acceptable method of content navigation device to discover MVPD device to make a request have the ability encryption to prevent content theft, and content on a home network with an to override the conflict and choose it is the content protection scheme used AllVid adapter. For example, to achieve which device to exclude? We seek in the Digital Living Network Alliance the efficiencies that come with comment on innovative ways to resolve (‘‘DLNA’’) standard. For these reasons, switched-digital video, devices attached device conflicts. we believe that the DTCP–IP standard to a cable network need to inform the 34. Several commenters have would be a logical choice for content cable headend when a subscriber stops highlighted issues regarding how a encryption and device authentication, watching a program. What protocols home network would handle emergency and we seek comment on that would be necessary for the AllVid alert system (‘‘EAS’’) messages, closed assessment. We also seek comment on adapter to query whether the navigation captioning data, and MVPD parental whether it would be practical to give device still requires access to the controls. We note that there are existing each navigation device its own specific program stream? standards to transmit closed captioning key. We believe that this could prevent 31. Content Encoding. A recent data and parental control data for a situation in which entire model controversy over audio-visual codec broadcast television and unencrypted classes of navigation devices would support has led to heightened awareness . We seek comment on need to be deauthorized in the event about the issue of content encoding. whether these standards can be adapted that a key were compromised. Should Ideally, navigation devices should be readily to perform these functions in the the Commission select a party to designed to decode content that has AllVid regime or whether new administer the public key database in been encoded in a number of specified standards development is necessary. We the same manner that the Commission formats and the AllVid adapter should note that development of a next handled the white spaces database, or be designed to transfer content in at generation EAS system is underway and would the relevant industry parties be least one of those formats. This would seek comment on how EAS messages able to agree on a third party to handle allow MVPDs to encode their content as formatted in the Common Alerting maintenance of a public key database? they wish without the need for the Protocol could be carried in the AllVid In the event that commenters are in AllVid adapter to transcode the content, system and received by devices. CEA favor of a third party maintaining the which could make the AllVid adapter and the Society of Cable public key database, we seek proposals more expensive and less energy Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE) regarding parties that can handle that efficient. We seek comment on whether have both adopted standards for the task. We seek comment on the ideas the Commission would need to specify carrying of EAS within the home presented here with respect to the formats, and, if so, on the audio- network. We seek comment on what encryption and authentication. We seek visual codecs that the Commission additional standards work is necessary comment also on any other proposals should require navigation devices to to assure that retail devices receive and that could serve the encryption and handle. display EAS messages. authentication functions in an AllVid- 32. Intellectual Property. The 35. We seek comment also on whether connected home network. Commission seeks comment on navigation devices in the AllVid system 29. Content Ordering and Billing. At intellectual property issues related to should include over-the-air ATSC least one party has indicated that proposed standards for the AllVid tuners. The Commission’s rules require

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:05 May 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 which some have argued have brought minimum functions that a navigation include an ATSC tuner. In the Second about policymaking by waiver? device needs to perform? Should there Report and Order, the Commission 38. In concept, the AllVid approach be different classifications of navigation concluded that ‘‘the public has come to would provide a successor technology devices, and if so, should the understand that television receivers to CableCARD. While the Commission is Commission dictate the minimum labeled or marketed as ‘cable ready’ separately proposing steps to ameliorate functionality requirements of specific universally include the capability of shortcomings in the retail market for classes? What steps can the Commission receiving over-the-air broadcast service.’’ CableCARD devices in the interim, we take to increase economic and energy Would consumers similarly expect this anticipate that AllVid devices could efficiencies that will allow consumers to equipment to receive over-the-air over time replace CableCARD devices connect fewer devices to their television broadcast service? Does the Commission on retail shelves. Accordingly, we seek display by consolidating functionality have the authority under the All- comment on whether the Commission into one device? Channel Receiver Act to impose such a should consider eliminating its 41. Would MVPDs be at an advantage requirement? CableCARD rules, and if so, the in providing set-top boxes because they 36. We seek comment also on appropriate date for such a change. We could provide home installation differences in delivery technology that seek comment on consumer whereas consumers typically would might require specific MVPD providers expectations regarding the lifespan of have to install devices purchased in the to include functionality beyond what is their devices, and whether the AllVid retail market themselves? Do MVPDs necessary for conditional access, approach or any other approach could earn a profit on home installations or, if provisioning, reception, and decoding of be implemented in a way that limits the not, would self-installations of retail the signal. For example, given the DBS number of CableCARD devices that devices by MVPD customers save industry’s inherently one-way become obsolete. MVPDs money? We seek comment also 39. Navigation Device Economics. distribution model, and on the assertion that the cost of bringing Certain parties suggest that a retail DIRECTV have indicated that home navigation device functionality into market for navigation devices may be gateway devices for DBS would need to television sets exceeds what consumers destined to fail because consumers are include hard drives for video caching to are willing to pay at retail. We seek data not interested in owning navigation allow their subscribers to view VOD on consumer purchasing behavior devices. We seek comment on this programming instantly and might need regarding home entertainment assessment, including whether equipment. To what extent are to include additional ‘‘intelligence.’’ We consumers prefer to lease at consumers willing to pay for additional seek proposals on any network-specific government-regulated ‘‘cost-plus’’ rates, functionalities in the equipment they functions that may need to be included whether consumers wish to avoid the purchase? Would the AllVid concept in particular operators’ AllVid adapters. risk of obsolescence of navigation change the economics of consumer We also seek comment on how we could devices, and whether consumers’ preferences? How much would an enable evolution of the AllVid system, inability to ‘‘port’’ a retail navigation AllVid adapter cost? How much would with respect to both the components of device when he or she changes MVPDs it cost to add AllVid compatibility to a the device and the output standards, in limits the attractiveness of the retail navigation device? Should the cost of an order to accommodate technological option. The cable industry has adopted AllVid adapter and charges for innovation over time. Finally, we seek the leasing model, charging customers a installation by the MVPD be calculated comment on any other issues regarding monthly fee that allows consumers to according to the Commission’s rate the AllVid regime and specific avoid a larger upfront cost entailed by regulation rules under section 76.923 in proposals that would allow the a retail purchase. To evaluate the rate-regulated communities? Finally, we Commission to resolve those issues. leasing versus retail equipment models, seek comment on whether economic or 37. AllVid Support Requirements. The we seek data on consumer behavior technological factors dictate that AllVid National Broadband Plan calls for when faced with a lease versus purchase adapters would have to be provided by Commission action to require MVPDs decision, concerning navigation devices the MVPD, or whether AllVid adapters who offer digital navigation devices for and analogous consumer electronic could be sold at retail, as NCTA has lease to be prepared to offer AllVid devices. We expect that MVPDs will suggested in the past. equipment to their subscribers by want to continue to offer devices for 42. Alternative Proposals. In response December 31, 2012. We seek comment lease or sale that provide greater to NBP PN #27, several MVPDs on that deadline, including measures functionality than an AllVid adapter. expressed reservations about a ‘‘home that would be effective in enforcing it. Should we require those devices to gateway’’ technology mandate. These To encourage MVPDs to adhere to this attach to the AllVid network, through an commenters suggest that the deadline, should the Commission take adapter? How would our decision on Commission should encourage market- supplemental measures that would whether operator-provided navigation driven negotiations and standards apply to MVPDs that are unable to devices must commonly rely on the development to achieve the goals of deploy AllVid equipment to all new AllVid network affect the economics of section 629. In this vein, we seek subscribers and to any subscribers who the retail and leasing markets? alternative proposals to the AllVid request AllVid equipment after this 40. What are consumer expectations concept that could lead to the deadline (such as denying extensions of with respect to ‘‘navigation devices?’’ implementation of a competitive market certain CableCARD waivers), or do the Traditionally, the Commission and solution for smart video devices by Commission’s existing enforcement interested parties have considered the December 31, 2012. We also seek input mechanisms, which allow the term navigation devices to include on whether the movement of functions imposition of forfeitures, provide televisions, set-top boxes (including away from navigation devices and into sufficient incentives for MVPDs to meet DVRs), and home theater computers. Do the cloud or network might represent a such a deadline? How can the these devices comprise the universe of viable alternative. How would the Commission prevent an overabundance navigation devices, and if not, what AllVid proposal affect the development of waiver requests similar to the ones other devices could perform navigation of downloadable security? Are there filed in response to the integration ban, device functions? Are there specific specific incentives that the Commission

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:05 May 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM 14MYP1 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27271

could create that would expedite market proceeding. For example, would it be 51. Effective December 28, 2009, all negotiations and address the reasonable for MVPDs to charge hand-delivered or messenger-delivered shortcomings of the current CableCARD separately for guide data, thereby saving paper filings for the Commission’s regime discussed above? subscribers who use third-party data Secretary must be delivered to FCC 43. Other Issues. Content from having to pay for the same data Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW., Room Presentation. Much of the innovation in twice? TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. All television reception devices is related to 45. Authority. The DC Circuit has hand deliveries must be held together easy-to-use graphical user interfaces; found that section 629 gives the with rubber bands or fasteners. Any device manufacturers distinguish their Commission broad discretion to adopt envelopes must be disposed of before products from one another by providing regulations to assure a competitive entering the building. The filing hours better user experiences. MVPDs argue, market for navigation devices. are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. however, that a graphical user interface Throughout this proceeding, certain 52. Commercial overnight mail (other that is standard across its footprint parties have argued that the than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail makes consumer education and support Commission lacks the authority to and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 easier; they also state that marketing require MVPDs to disaggregate their East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, agreements often require the MVPD to programming guides and allow retail MD 20743. provide certain content within the devices to ‘‘repackage’’ their content. . Providers also Section 629 directs the Commission to 53. U.S. Postal Service first-class, argue that multiple graphical user adopt regulations to assure the retail Express, and Priority mail must be interfaces would create customer commercial availability of navigation addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., confusion with regard to whom devices, and the DC Circuit’s review has Washington, DC 20554. subscribers should call with questions been ‘‘particularly deferential’’ in cases 54. People with Disabilities: To about problems associated with the user where the ‘‘FCC must make judgments request materials in accessible formats interface, service, and hardware about future market behavior with for people with disabilities (braille, compatibility. What steps should be respect to a brand-new technology.’’ We large print, electronic files, audio taken to minimize any potential for seek further comment on our authority format), send an e-mail to confusion with regard to the appropriate under section 629 of the Act. [email protected] or call the Consumer & provider of customer service for retail Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– IV. Procedural Matters device product performance, warranty, 418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (tty). 46. Ex Parte Rules. This is an exempt and service-related issues? Given the 55. Availability of Documents. proceeding in which ex parte inherent conflict between innovation Comments, reply comments, and ex presentations are permitted (except and standardization, we seek comment parte submissions will be available for during the Sunshine Agenda period) on whether the Commission should public inspection during regular adopt rules governing the way in which and need not be disclosed. 47. Filing Requirements. Pursuant to business hours in the FCC Reference MVPD content is presented. What steps Center, Federal Communications should be taken to protect agreements §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY– between MVPDs and content providers? A257, Washington, DC 20554. These Is there a way to balance MVPDs’ parties may file comments on or before July 13, 2010; reply comments are due documents will also be available via interests in improved customer service ECFS. Documents will be available and adherence to their marketing on or before August 12, 2010. Comments electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, contracts against the consumer benefits may be filed using: (1) The and/or Adobe Acrobat. that result from electronics Commission’s Electronic Comment manufacturers differentiating their Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal 56. Accessibility Information. To products from competitors’? We seek Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3) request information in accessible comment on the best way to resolve this by filing paper copies. See Electronic formats (computer diskettes, large print, issue. Filing of Documents in Rulemaking audio recording, and Braille), send an e- 44. We also seek comment on Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). mail to [email protected] or call the FCC’s intellectual property issues associated 48. Electronic Filers: Comments may Consumer and Governmental Affairs with electronic programming guides. be filed electronically using the Internet Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) The Consumer Electronics Association by accessing the ECFS: http:// 418–0432 (TTY). This document can asserts that consumers already pay for fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal also be downloaded in Word and programming guide data as part of their eRulemaking Portal: http:// Portable Document Format (PDF) at: subscription fees, that the data is not www.regulations.gov. http://www.fcc.gov. subject to intellectual property 49. Paper Filers: Parties who choose 57. Additional Information. For protection, and that therefore MVPDs to file by paper must file an original and additional information on this should provide programming guide data four copies of each filing. If more than proceeding, contact Steven Broeckaert, in a form that would allow competitive one docket or rulemaking number [email protected], Brendan devices to display the data as they wish. appears in the caption of this Murray, [email protected], of the MVPDs disagree, arguing that the proceeding, filers must submit two Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) intellectual property issues related to additional copies for each additional 418–2120, or Alison Neplokh, electronic programming guide docket or rulemaking number. [email protected], of the Media presentation and data are more complex 50. Filings can be sent by hand or Bureau, Engineering Division, (202) than the Consumer Electronics messenger delivery, by commercial 418–1083. Association suggests. In addition to overnight courier, or by first-class or seeking comment on the intellectual overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All Federal Communications Commission. property issues, we seek specific filings must be addressed to the Marlene H. Dortch, proposals for solutions or reasonable Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary. compromises that could address those Secretary, Federal Communications [FR Doc. 2010–11388 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] issues and achieve the objectives of this Commission. BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:05 May 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM 14MYP1 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS