Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of ) ) Implementation of Section 304 of the ) CS Docket No. 97-80 Telecommunications Act of 1996 ) ) Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices ) ) Compatibility Between Cable Systems and ) PP Docket No. 00-67 Consumer Electronics Equipment )
COMMENTS OF IPCO, LLC
IPCO, LLC (“IPCO”), through undersigned counsel, submits these, its
comments to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 10-61 (“Notice”).
1. Introduction. IPCO is a designer and developer of set top boxes
(“STBs”). IPCO’s newest line of STBs are navigation devices with a CableCard separable security element in compliance with Section 629 of the Act and Section
76.1102(a) of the regulations.1 IPCO’s compliant STB product line includes both
low-end (one way featureless) STBs and higher-end STBs with PVR/DVR
functionality.
All of IPCO’s devices seamlessly convert or pass through the analog or
digital native headend signals for viewing on the subscriber’s analog or digital/HD
1 IPCO has identified itself before the Commission in CSR-8206-Z (Comments of IPCO, LLC, filed October 8, 2009), CSR-7902-Z (Supplement to Petition for Reconsideration, filed by Public Knowledge December 8, 2009) and ex parte correspondence in this docket filed by IPCO on April 6, 2010. receiver. IPCO also provides a digital transport system for analog cable headends
using these compliant STBs. IPCO STBs can read Cable Card security on a
channel or band/channel group basis so that tap-trapped legacy cable systems
(typically less than 550MHz) with limited addressability can program conditional access (“CA”) for only pay services or expanded basic tiers. Attached is a brochure of IPCO-affiliate GOIPTV, LLC describing IPCO’s digital transport system. Aside from CableCARDs certified by CableLabs, IPCO’s Cable Card devices are the only other compliant headend-to-converter/STB system available in
the United States. The decision to launch this line without CableCARD
certification from CableLabs was made only because of the certification bottleneck
and prohibitive cost required to go through CableLab’s labyrinth testing process,
the prescriptive front end testing fee, and the adhesive intellectual property rights
requirements. IPCO’s navigation devices are built from publically-available
OpenCable specifications and are CableCARD ready. Meanwhile, IPCO
CableCards satisfy the law and enable analog systems to digitize on an extremely
cost-effective basis.
2. Proposed CableCARD Reforms. From IPCO’s perspective, the
Commission’s proposed CableCARD reforms are a badly needed step in the right
direction of attempting to deal with the inherent statutory prohibition on
deployment of integrated devices and the reality of the pure Hobson’s Choice
2 facing consumers seeking basic STBs with limited functionality: (ii) pay endless rent for a low-end integrated STB; or (ii) do without (either analog or digital) cable
TV.2 Ironically, to avoid equipment rental for an eternity, the customer must purchase a high-end multi-functional device for hundreds of dollars, e.g., Tivo, because of the unavailability of low-end compliant devices until now. The IPCO
GOIPTV Series 1000, expected to retail at $69.00,3 can be available to cable operators and consumer electronics outlets if there were a clear path to obtaining testing at a reasonable price and time period. IPCO is aware of at least three
Korean concerns that built beta (or test/demo unit) STBs pursuant to CableLabs’ specifications, but could not get sufficient manufacturing or distribution interest because of the prohibitively high testing cost associated with CableLabs certification and extraordinary delay inherent in the CableLabs regime.
Under the Commission’s approach, as IPCO understands the Notice proposal, cable operators would be permitted to deploy low-end integrated devices
2 Rule section 76.630 (prohibition against scrambling the basic service tier) application to digital tiers continues to require operators of minimum-band cable systems to make their systems default to a ‘life-line”-type basic service tier (‘BST”) configuration to avoid cable theft from ‘hot’ disconnects. The emerging curve of the Commission’s view of a waiver policy for this issue seems to be towards allowing cable systems to encrypt their entire BST or their non-broadcast cable services on the BST. See Cablevision Systems Corporation, DA 10-34 (Released January 8, 2010). See also NPRM in this Docket No. PP 00-67, FCC 00-137 (Released April 14, 2000), ¶17). Rapid universal deployment of CableCARD compliant devices would assist cable operators in handling their churn by making ‘hot’ disconnects a secure, accepted practice: Neither the ‘unscrambled’ BST nor any ‘scrambled’ services would be viewable over the ‘hot’ disconnect unless the new occupant took service and received his or her CableCARD.
3 IPCO has made significant progress in both its distribution and pricing models for its compliant STBs with respect to its end-to-end solution for digitizing small cable systems (<550 MHZ).
3 under a blanket waiver.4 Notice @ ¶22. In IPCO’s case, as provider of low-end
compliant devices, it and other STB builders would be able to distribute compliant
STBs through consumer electronics outlets once type accepted pursuant to a
declaration of conformity from an accredited laboratory that meets the
requirements of Rule Section 15.123(b). Notice at ¶18 and at Appendix A; Rule
Section §15.38 (incorporated by reference).
Compliant device providers, such as is IPCO, also would retain the
nominal opportunity to distribute through cable operators; but in light of the
Commission’s proposed universal blanket waiver for cable operators to use
integrated devices (Notice at ¶22 and at Appendix A) and MSO (‘multiple system
operators’) decisions already taken under the Commission’s previous waiver
orders, such will not likely result in significant distribution through cable operators who have already made their systems digital --- particularly with the now-looming
AllVideo rulemaking to emanate from the Commission’s companion Notice of
Inquiry, FCC 10-60 (released April 21, 2010) (“NOI”).
Some of these smaller operators/MSOs have converted their headends to digital utilizing the Commission’s waiver process as their STB solution. Others are
4 IPCO has expressed its views (n.2, Supra) as to it and its partners having spent years in research and development to bring to market a compliant, low-cost navigation device separate from the security (CableCARD/Card) module to meet Section 629’s requirements and the Commission’s pronouncements only to have the target moved at the time of delivery to face off against non-compliant devices with limited functionality. IPCO understands, however, that some change must occur and that CableCARD reform is the rational path. We hope the Commission takes our comments to heart as we attempt to address inherent issues and flaws with the current CableCARD regime.
4 in the process of digitizing their headends. Because of the CableLabs certification
ordeal, cable operator members of the National Cable Television Cooperative,
representing 13 million household subscribers and the majority of less-than-
550MHZ systems that are planning to digitize are IPCO’s target customer base.
When approached from an outlet rather than a household perspective, even in non- legacy systems, the shape of a market emerges for low-end, compliant devices.5
But IPCO’s navigation devices (as well as those of any other compliant device provider going forward) need CableCARD certification to ultimately ensure that its
cable operator customers and their subscribers are served with the navigation
device ubiquity, commonality and portability consumers deserve and that Section
629 of the Act requires.
3. Suggested Refinements to CableCARD Reform. IPCO is concerned with down-layering the availability of low-end CableCARD devices to the availability of additional testing facilities, i.e., having to wait for testing facility
competition to emerge sufficiently to offer a timely alternative to a CableLabs
certification. By the same token, cable carding itself must be carefully
implemented to ensure accuracy and interoperability among device manufacturers
5 Data are sparse on the number of analog receivers in operation in the United States, but at least 35% of cable households only use analog television receivers. It is generally unknown how many ‘second’ outlet analog receivers are in operation. Recent industry analyses report approximately 65% of US households as having at least one digital/HDTV receiver, up 13 percent from a year ago. Consumers are also buying HDTVs as secondary sets. The average household now has 1.8 high-definition televisions, up from 1.5 percent a year ago. Also 23 percent of Americans plan to buy an HDTV in the next 12 months. “HDTV Penetration Reaches 65%.” Washington Business Journal (May 6, 2010). See http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2010/05/03/daily61.html.
5 for portability and commonality. CableLabs’ efforts and accomplishments are not
to be overlooked or diminished. Under CableCARD reform, Section 629 goal
accomplishment, and the AllVideo approach in the NOI, CableLabs should be
expected to play a continuing, leading role.
The navigation device under the CableCARD regime is not the technological
impediment to deployment; it is the card. Device testing, for Part 15 deployment
purposes, is straightforward. The device needs to accurately read the card. The testing facility can determine that on a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ basis, particularly for basic uni-directional STBs.
At present, however, CableLabs’ certification requirements bundle the navigation device maker with the cable card maker (and the platform developer).
Device makers seeking certification must supply and program/have programmed
their own cards. With certified cards, device testing for certification can be
streamlined easily and outsourced; CableLabs can devote its needed resources to
standards and specifications developments and to facilitating test cards and
appropriate documentation to the testing facilities. By focusing on card
certification, CableLabs can create the conditions for card manufacturers to seek
certification directly thus bringing the card cost down, acclaimating cable operators
to the fact that card expense will be borne by them no matter the device
6 manufacturer, and to remove the lurking card cost as an element of navigation device development.
On the testing side, the Commission should consider measures that will ramp up immediately the availability of qualified testing facilities, such as, not limiting the same to only ‘accredited’ facilities and expanding ‘qualified’ to include ‘recognized’ testing facilities. Another suggestion while testing facilities ramp up is to permit recognized CA security audit firms to conduct card and device testing, such as, e.g., Telcordia Technologies, Inc. and Merdan Group, Inc.
Cable Labs application requirements similarly need unbundling. Navigation
device makers must meet the same (onerous) requirements as OpenCable platform
developers. For example, device maker applicants must disclose and license their
intellectual property to CableLabs as a condition of certification (OpenCable
Intellectual Property Rights Policy) including Patent and Copyright claims, a
license to OpenCable regarding their device, and forcing participation in Cable
Labs intellectual property pool; device applicants must pay an upfront
‘maintenance fee’ and agree to an annual maintenance fee (OpenCable Host
Device Digital Authorization); applicants must become authenticated prior to
device presentation for testing with no time limit on the authentication process or
length of time for testing and ultimate certification. In short, CableLabs
7 certification is an inordinately expensive and time consuming process for what has been historically a routine Part 15 process.
At the same time, the Commission should require CableLabs to certify the navigation device within a set period of time (30 days) for those seeking testing from the CableLabs facility, particularly for the limited functionality navigation
device prototypes under consideration in the Notice. These measures will speed up
the process by allowing more certification facilities without sacrificing POS
interoperability while still adhering to the basic OpenCable perogatives.
On the cable operator side, the Commission should consider an advertising
campaign similar to that formulated for broadcasters when the switch was made to
digital off-air broadcasting: advertise the availability of CableCARD from the
cable operator. Cable operators should be required to ‘Red Letter’ CableCARD
availability prominently on Page One of their websites. Bill stuffers should also be
required for each month until regulations emanating from the NOI are in place.
Similarly, all emails to subscribers should bear notice of CableCARD availability.6
To this end, the Commission could require cable operators to include CableCARD
availability disclosures in consumer education notices via cablecasts, sent
separately via email, as well as with each monthly bill for the limited time until
new regulations emanating from the NOI are effective.
6 Subscribers who pay their monthly invoices via ACH typically must pull their statements from the cable operator’s website in order to see what notifications have been provided as well as their invoiced amounts. Requiring the notice on the triggering email will let those subscribers know of CableCARD.
8 4. Conclusion. With the Commission’s proposal to permit CableCARD device certification through any qualified testing facility with IPCO’s suggested refinements, IPCO and other device builders may now begin to stock store shelves with an eye towards developing consumer awareness of STB availability on a basis other than perpetual lease payments or heavy investment in high-end STBs. And the timing could not be better than now to prime the consumer market for the
AllVideo solution(s) anticipated to emanate from the NOI.
Respectfully Submitted,
IPCO, LLC
By: ______James E. Meyers Its Counsel
June 14, 2010
Law Office of James E. Meyers, P.C. Post Office Drawer 40147 Washington, DC 20016-0147
202.232.2900 202.232.2912 (Fax)
9 ATTACHMENT
10 Transport digital Migration system
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• G*,3&.$.'/HHE2'-"#"$%&'7.%-.+-':3#)%-.'6$%)$"+#'%$'IJK=LLL' • ?!'!M/6'@*)'&.66'$7%+'INK' • !:%&'M:+.)'!OH6'@*)'&.66'$7%+'IJKL' •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• 2.8:).["$'3)*9"-.6'$7.'G/'3&%$@*),'5*:'+..-'$*'3)*9"-.'3).,":,'3)*#)%,,"+#;'' • /0*)-%1&.[5*:'*+&5'+..-'$*'3:)87%6.'%+-'-.3&*5'$7.")'6.3%)%1&.'6.8:)"$5',*-:&.'@*)'8:6$*,.)6'C7*' 3%5'@*)'3).,":,'6.)9"8.6='+*$'@*)'1%6"8'$".)'6:168)"1.)6;''' • G*,3&"%+$[6.3%)%1&.'6.8:)"$5'$*'8*,3&5'C"$7'$7.''&#$/%!#'0&+1!&+ • \D3.)%$*)'@)".+-&5][%,%B"+#&5',%+%#.'$7.'G/'656$.,^6'@.%$:).6'C"$7'$7.")'.A8.&&.+$':6.)'"+$.)@%8.' • 4&.A"1&.[.%6"&5'"+$.#)%$.6'C"$7',*6$'1"&&"+#'656$.,6' M7.'!"#"$%&'("#)%$"*+'_)*8.66' M7.'!"#$%&'"()*./)"+8&:-.6'$53"8%&'"+6$%&&%$"*+'8*6$6`''M7.'/HHE2'7.%-.+-'.P:"3,.+$'8%+':6:%&&5'1.'"+6$%&&.-' P:"8>&5a'1:$'7*C'@%6$'%'656$.,'67*:&-',"#)%$.'$*'-"#"$%&'3)*#)%,,"+#'C"&&'-.3.+-':3*+'6.9.)%&'@%8$*)6'"+8&:-"+#' $7.'+:,1.)'*@'6:168)"1.)6'%+-'$7.'+:,1.)'*@''%9%"&%1&.'@)..'87%++.&6;'(%>.'%+'%33*"+$,.+$'C"$7'*+.'*@'*:)' 63.8"%&"6$6'$*'-.9.&*3'%'8:6$*,"B.-'3&%+'@*)'5*:)'-"#"$%&',"#)%$"*+;'
!"#$!"!#$%&'()!'%*(##+,-*!.-(,$/%''*0%12332%#456789%!:4;<4/%(:4=87;>%?7=@/%A$%BBCCD%% EFF032101GBC%H%?%I1D03FC033II%H%J%I1D03FC033I3%H%KKK07>7LMN8OP7806OL% Transport DMS
DTAs and DVRs'
31#(4"1%'*@'%&&'Transport DMS ,*-.&6F' • /&&V-"#"$%&'?!'WLbL"cWLbL3' • T%65V$*V:6.'*+'68)..+',.+:'RD2(S' • T%65'2.$:3'd:"-.'"+6$%&&%$"*+' • 4:&&'_"8$:).V"+'d)%37"8'R_EdS'@:+8$"*+' • eJV1"$'HE2G'%)87"$.8$:).' • (:&$"V&%+#:%#.',.+:' • _%).+$%&'G*+$)*&'@.%$:).6' • 4:&&'T_d'C"$7'6.%)87'@.%$:).6% • 4%9*)"$.'%+-'&%6$'87%++.&').8%&&' • 2!'%+-'6:1$"$&.6'6:33*)$.-' • eJ='Yf='WJb='g'JKY'U/('G*+6$.&&%$"*+' • (_Td'J'g'(_Td'f'/OGc?;JYf'?_ijf' • (_Td'W'%:-"*'eJ='ff;W'g'fb'h?B' • H.,*$.=',%+:%&='%+-'/G'8*)-'"+8&:-.-''
5&(+'$#-'*+'%&&'Transport DMS ,*-.&6F% • Q7"$.'&%1.&'1)%+-"+#' • 2"&9.)'*)'1&%8>' • !*&15'/GVe' • 2.3%)%1&.'6.8:)"$5',*-:&.'
Transport DMS 2000
• ?!'!M/'@*)'&.66'$7%+'INK' • ?!(E='H4'%+-'G*,3*6"$.'*:$3:$6'' • JKL'A'ff'A'WKf',,'
Transport DMS 4000%
• !:%&'M:+.)'!OH'@*)'&.66'$7%+'IJKL' • (_e'_&%5.)' • ?!!'*3$"*+6'*@'KLLd<'%+-'W'M<' • k_Td'6&"-.'67*C' • M",.'67"@$"+#').8*)-"+#'*@'b'7*:)6' • Z2<'?*6$'OJ;L' • ?!(E='H4='8*,3*6"$.'g'8*,3*+.+$'*:$3:$6' • eNK'A'KL'A'JeL',,''
!"#$!"!#$%&'()!'%*(##+,-*!.-(,$/%''*0%12332%#456789%!:4;<4/%(:4=87;>%?7=@/%A$%BBCCD%% EFF032101GBC%H%?%I1D03FC033II%H%J%I1D03FC033I3%H%KKK07>7LMN8OP7806OL%