Comments on the Video Device Recommendations in the National Broadband Plan
There is little doubt that all 356-pages of the National Broadband Plan will be analyzed thoroughly in the days and weeks ahead. I’ll take this opportunity to offer some commentary on the “Broadband Competition and Innovation Policy” chapter which among other items addresses how the Commission can create a true retail video device marketplace that works for consumers that subscribe to any multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD).
First, and perhaps most importantly, we are very pleased that the Plan is so clear that the only way a retail video device marketplace can fully work for consumers is if all MVPDs participate. And, as part of a proceeding to do this, we have already committed to a series of consumer principles governing video devices which we think can and should serve as the foundation for Commission and inter-industry efforts:
Our industry is committed to providing content to consumers where and when they want it, on all possible consumer devices, and for those devices to be innovative platforms for new applications. We want consumers to be able to buy video devices at retail and to know that cable content can be among their video sources.
The cable industry has consistently asked the Commission to take a fresh look at the CableCARD and navigation device rules in light of today’s market where 40 million consumers subscribe to video service from satellite and telephone providers. Most of cable’s competitors have been exempted from the rules which clearly haven’t led us to the place that Congress envisioned in the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
As far back as August 2007, NCTA called on the Commission to implement an “all MVPD” solution:
For CE manufacturers who would build devices that can operate not just across cable but across a wide variety of MVPD networks, there could be a new network interface device. Such a device could handle most of the complexities of network consumer premises equipment functionalities and deliver an MVPDs services across an interface that can also be used by other MVPD networks. This approach could offer consumers a low cost option for accessing all cable services on bi-directional retail devices, the ability to use their televisions with other MVPD providers, and the capability to access new services on the same television as new and innovative services are deployed. The cable industry could work on such a solution should the Commission bring those networks into meaningful regulation.
We renewed our call for a broad Commission proceeding last December and highlighted some of the reasons why a cable-only retail video device marketplace has failed to develop:
It may be that consumers simply prefer the option of leasing devices that are available at government regulated “cost-plus” rates (or whose rates are otherwise kept low in markets where effective competition exists) and which can be upgraded when the next model is released rather than purchasing a device at retail and assuming the risk of obsolescence. Leasing also makes it easier for customers to switch from cable to satellite to telco video services and back again, especially since today’s retail CableCARD devices are not supported by the DBS providers or many telephone-company MVPDs. It may be that the CableCARD, while well supported, is becoming outdated: AT&T’s U-verse and other IPTV services use DRM-based security methods.
The Plan also suggests replacing the CableCARD regime in favor of a “gateway” approach. As we’ve pointed out before, a gateway approach is certainly one of several approaches that should be thought through, and we are pleased that the Broadband Plan acknowledges that “functional equivalents” should also be reviewed. But, while we are committed to working constructively with the FCC on this and related issues, we still firmly believe that technology mandates should be a last resort. And to meet different consumer demands and needs, it is important that innovation be encouraged by both MVPDs and third party manufacturers. Proposals to “disaggregate” a service purchased by a customer, and provided by a MVPD, over-the-top or other service, would undercut the very premise of innovation we should want, and are likely to fail.
We also welcome an informed debate on the Plan’s proposed short-term fixes. However, the focus on cable-only changes is, to be candid, at odds with the effort to incentivize all-MVPD solutions, and its proposals to change the CableCARD regime seem inconsistent with the Plan’s overarching recognition (which we pointed out last year) that cable-centric CableCARDs do not appear to be the key path to success. We’ll make the case to the FCC that it is far better to focus on improving the marketplace for consumers in light of the exciting changes taking place before our eyes than to dwell on issues that are increasingly stale and, more important, increasingly irrelevant to the marketplace of today, let alone tomorrow.
::
Send to a friend
March 16th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
I take great exception with the assumption that the consumer will willingly take whatever STB the cable company deems appropriate and innovative. While in a franchised monopoly, local CableCo’s frequently upcharge for unreliable, difficult to use, limited-functionality STB’s. Many of these 2nd rate STB’s offered by local cable monopolies represent cheap knock-off’s, and many consumers will not stand for the lack of reliability, tunability, and customizations offered in the typical CableCo offering. Moreover, the CableCo feels free to use the EPG as a continuous advertising platform for upsale in cable services. While other STB providers aren’t immune to this treatment (TiVo specifically), their consumers have far more power in “voting with their dollars” to shape that service than they do their local CableCo.
CableCard is accomplishing its goal, giving the consumer some power to fight the franchised monopoly position of the Cable Companies. I, for one, hope they find a way to “keep the fight fair” now and in the future.
March 16th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
“Regime” is an interesting word choice with interesting connotations…
I have no problem with the hardware separable security of CableCARD, despite possibly obscene certification fees, archaic PCMCIA spec, and frequent truck roll requirement. But I do have a problem with the idea of mandated cable-co UIs pushed down via tru2way. Provide the hooks, but leave the experience/UI to all comers. And let’s dump this SDV tuning adapter hack.
March 16th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
One of my favorite customer service quotes is “Customer service is not a department, it’s an attitude!” -UNKNOWN
March 17th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
[...] course, THE cable industry doesn’t quite see eye to eye on all points. As they’ve got a business to protect. And seem to suggest that IPTV and satellite television [...]
March 17th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
I take great exception to the author’s implication that CableCARD is, or ever has been “well supported” in retail devices by any cable MSO. The best I’ve seen so far – with both Time-Warner and Midcontinent Cable – is that they’ll take orders and get out of your way; at worst your cable MSO will work to *actively* impede your ability to use such a device, requiring you to submit complaints to the FCC, even though they know good and well they’re mandated to provide CableCARDs for such devices. Cable operators don’t educate their techs on the process, and seem to actively discourage their people from taking any real initiative. I don’t expect them to sub in as tech support for vendors like TiVo and Moxi – if the problem is with their hardware, I’ll take it up with them. I just expect them to provide the cards without a fight breaking out, and to actually know generally the process of installing the cards.
Unfortunately, I’m sure this will continue if any interaction is required on their end with the proposed gateway model – but from what I’ve read, it sounds like (in theory) it shouldn’t. But anyway, I find it incredibly unfair, and frankly hilarious, for anyone in the cable business to pat themselves on the back about how well they’ve supported CableCARD. That’s patently ridiculous, as I’m sure anyone with a Moxi, TiVo, or CableCARD-equipped WMC system will almost certainly attest.
March 17th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
[...] of the biggest lobbyists in the industry, signed on too. Since the FCC announced its plan, both the cable lobbying group and Comcast executives have already written blog posts detailing how they would like the FCC to [...]
March 18th, 2010 at 6:04 am
[...] his letter, posted at the lobbying group’s CableTechTalk blog, National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) President and CEO Kyle McSlarrow [...]
March 18th, 2010 at 9:17 am
[...] of the biggest lobbyists in the industry, signed on too. Since the FCC announced its plan, both the cable lobbying group and Comcast executives have already written blog posts detailing how they would like the FCC to [...]
March 18th, 2010 at 9:58 am
The cable industry may not like technology mandates, but unfortunately that is the only way they will not lock all subscribers to their own equipment with the features disabled. Really now, a Motorola or Scientific Atlanta DVR with a puny 160GB hard drive and a disabled ESATA port is no substitute for a TiVo or media center with ooodles of recording space, “to go” features and web video integration. Not only that, but since the cable industry has resisted CableCARD at every turn, it is quite clear that they have no desire to make it work. Therefore it must be mandated upon them because that is the only way consumers will have a choice. And yes I 100% agree that any tech mandate should include ALL of the players in the MVPD space – IPTV, satellite, cable. Nobody should be exempt.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
If the industry doesn’t like the cablecard mandate, I would suggest that they be treated as the phone company and prohibited from owning and leasing equipment to subscribers. The ideal solution to an open market is to remove the device from the control of the supplier and put it into the hands of the consumer.
As with the phone company, the cable co could sell and service equipment at market rates but would not be able to dictate what equipment a consumer could use.
That would really be a free market.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
[...] biggest lobbyists [9] in the industry, signed on too. Since the FCC announced its plan, both the cable lobbying group [10] and Comcast [7] executives have already written blog posts detailing how they would like the [...]
March 18th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
[...] biggest lobbyists [9] in the industry, signed on too. Since the FCC announced its plan, both the cable lobbying group [10] and Comcast [7] executives have already written blog posts detailing how they would like the [...]
March 19th, 2010 at 2:05 am
Nice looking blog you have here. The theme is awesome, great color combination.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:59 am
I really like youtube but it does have some bad points. Like with copyright and stuff.
March 30th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
What are the different types of broadband available? I would like to get a provider for my home business, but have no clue which is the most appropriate for my small business in terms of functionality as well as costs.
April 20th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
[...] “While we are committed to working constructively with the FCC on this and related issues, we still firmly believe that technology mandates should be a last resort,” he wrote. [...]
April 21st, 2010 at 12:55 pm
[...] Video Programming Distributors is quite critical. I’ll point you to this previous post: Comments on the Video Device Recommendations in the National Broadband Plan. Here’s a key quote: The cable industry has consistently asked the Commission to take a fresh [...]
June 14th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
youtube has tightened their copyright laws so much we cant even add songs to our videos anymore.