To be more technical about it, as industry observer Leslie Ellis put it:

…we’re moving to a world where stuff can be done without set-top boxes, at least as they exist in hardware. Now, it’s set-tops; next, it’s gateways that bridge between set-tops and cable modems, and ultimately, it’s video delivered completely over IP, from the network, to the end devices.

I bring this up because NCTA’s President and CEO Michael Powell sent a letter last week to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski about these new developments and what they mean for our ability to achieve a fully competitive and innovative retail video device marketplace.

This issue has been discussed for some time, but 2011 has brought a host of services entering the marketplace.  See some of our previous posts:

• Consumers Reaping Benefits of Smart Video Device Revolution
• Connected TV… Here to Stay

All of that was before The Cable Show. As Michael Powell’s letter pointed out, the various demos and panels from our event help show how the cable industry “is providing American consumers with powerful, personal, and portable services and networks that support unprecedented mobility of content to multiple devices both in and out of the home.”

The Cable Show demonstrated that Congress’s and the Commission’s video device goals are already being achieved in the marketplace.  …there is broad-based momentum in the cable industry to deliver cable services to consumers on any device.

Today, consumers have more sources of video programming and content on more devices than ever before, and the choices are only growing through a variety of market-based approaches: smart TVs, iPads and other tablets, TV from the “cloud,” set-top boxes that can combine TV with Internet content, the growing role of home networking and connected devices. All of these approaches are playing a role.

As quoted in this write-up in Multichannel News, NCTA is suggesting that regulatory efforts intended to encourage innovation may instead impede.

“The problem that remains in this marketplace is not the need for a single guiding regulatory prescription,” like the FCC’s proposed AllVid solution, wrote Powell. “The marketplace is at a critical juncture, inviting participants to make major bets and even more major investments in technology to meet rapidly developing consumer demand with rapidly changing technological tools. This kind of innovation is about risk taking. The environment that invites the greatest risk taking is one with the certainty that regulators will not step in and displace new technologies or new investments.”

FOOTNOTE: There was a lot of activity at The Cable Show along these lines, but you get a taste of what’s happening in this area, watch some videos from The Park, such as the demos from Comcast, Cablevision and HBO.

This transition is due to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), the organization responsible for handing out global IP addresses, having exhausted their supply of existing addresses.  Fortunately, the cable industry has been working for several years to prepare for the transition and to minimize the impact on Internet users.

(CableLabs today issued a press release: Cable Industry Is Well Positioned to Transition to Next Internet Protocol, IPv6.)

We’ve often noted that “the Internet” is a network of networks – a global communications platform with no single authority. This is exactly how it was designed to work from the beginning and Internet Protocol addresses are the key to this system.

Devices that are designed to interact with the Internet are assigned IP addresses so that messages can be sent and received.  Today’s Internet traffic today travels via the Internet Protocol version “IPv4.”  IPv4 has the capability to address about 4.3 billion devices which was originally thought to be plenty, but is now expiring because of the tremendous innovation and growth we’ve seen in devices that access the Internet.

IANA provides these IP addresses to five regional Internet registries (RIRs) around the world, who in turn hand out the addresses to Internet Service Providers (ISPs).  As IANA runs out of IPv4 address blocks, it is expected that the RIRs will hand out all of their IPv4 addresses later this year.  As a result, ISPs, who get their addresses from the RIRs, will not be able to get additional IPv4 addresses.

From IPv4 to IPv6

The solution to the IPv4 crunch is to transition to Internet Protocol version 6, which has a dramatically larger address space (128 address bits compared to the 32 address bits in IPv4).  This transition will include participation from content providers and websites, ISPs, equipment vendors, as well as consumers – in other words, all the parts of the entire Internet “ecosystem.”

Cable operators have also been taking the lead in encouraging others to transition to IPv6.  Last Fall, NCTA and CableLabs held an educational IPv6 summit with television content companies and cable operators.  Cable operators, along with CableLabs and NCTA, have been aggressively working with different Internet organizations such as NANOG (The North American Network Operators’ Group) and the IETF (the Internet Engineering Task Force).  And cable operators are now working to implement IPv6 across their broadband networks.  Comcast just yesterday announced that it is conducting the first North American test of IPv6 with a group of DOCSIS cable modem users in Colorado (Also see past posts about IPv6 on Comcast’s blog).

To help evangelize the transition, on June 8, 2011, the Internet Society (ISOC) is promoting “World IPv6 Day,” to encourage all Internet participants “test drive” IPv6 for a 24-hour period.  Cable plans to participate in World IPv6 Day.

Look for more updates about the transition to IPv6 from CableLabs and NCTA.

The proliferation of these devices, plus a whole host of new business arrangements between “traditional” video providers and device makers, highlight how consumers are enjoying ways to view video programming on multiple devices when and where they want it.  A previous post on this year’s CES highlighted some of these exciting new choices.

To highlight this remarkable growth and urge the Commission to refrain from adopting new tech mandates that could stifle this innovation, NCTA President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow today sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski on the Commission’s “AllVid” proceeding (see some background here).

In his letter, Kyle pointed to the dozens of recent business announcements which have “emerged to meet consumer demand without any technology mandate or regulatory guarantee.”

The fact that tens of millions of tablets, game consoles, Internet-connected TVs, and other smart, video-capable devices have been sold and will be sold means that the Commission no longer needs to ‘create’ a retail market for navigation devices…  Instead, the Commission should focus on “keeping the runway clear” of impediments and unnecessary rules that could slow these exciting developments.

The growing list of marketplace developments is impressive, and getting longer each week:

• Video services from Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon are being offered as retail applications on televisions, tablets, PCs, and gaming devices, including those manufactured by Samsung and Sony.
• More than 118 million Internet-connected TVs are expected to be sold by 2014, and competing smart video devices and game consoles offer video services from MVPDs and over-the-top video providers including Netflix, YouTube and Hulu.
• Several video providers are now offering “TV Everywhere” online services for Internet-connected devices without the need for a “gateway,” and MVPD set-top boxes are beginning to combine TV and web content.
• Secure home networks are being used to collect video content from a variety of sources to be shared with Internet-connected TVs, game consoles, PCs, and mobile devices.
• New video interfaces are emerging as smart phones are blurring the lines between the mobile and big screen experience, and new digital rights technology will provide consumers new ways to buy content from multiple vendors and enjoy it on a variety of Internet connected-devices.
• Video providers, including Charter, Cox and Suddenlink, and device manufacturers like TiVo are working together on unique programming distribution agreements, combining the retail device and MVPD service experience.

This combination of strong competition between multichannel video providers –which includes cable, DirecTV & DISH, AT&T’s U-verse & Verizon’s FiOS – and the emergence of so many new ways of viewing video through broadband – Hulu, Netflix, Roku, Boxee, Apple TV – means that the pace of innovation will likely continue. But McSlarrow warned that we must ensure that this diversity of choice not be “undermined by unnecessary one-size-fits-all and other harmful government technology mandates.”

Instead of the Commission mandating specific technical requirements that could stifle innovative in this dynamic marketplace, McSlarrow argued that cable’s consumer device video principles – which were first submitted to the FCC in March 2010 – could be used to assess and assure innovation and progress in the video service and video devices markets.

The iPad analogy at the beginning of this post may be an exaggeration but when the National Broadband Plan was adopted last year, the iPad hadn’t even been released.  If that doesn’t demonstrate how fast the marketplace changes, I don’t know what does.

As we’ve argued before, during a period of such innovation and experimentation, it’s unclear what approaches lie on the horizon or which ones will ultimately succeed.

We’ve already responded via filings of our own  – making the points that Tuning Adapters are generally working and the TiVo proposed “fix” doesn’t withstand scrutiny  – but I wanted to take some time to explain where we think TiVo gets it wrong. (Coverage of this battle of filings can be found at Multichannel News and Light Reading.)

TiVo has proposed that, in lieu of the Tuning Adapter solution, the government should require the cable industry to engineer a new Internet pathway to cable headends that will handle SDV signaling from third-party devices. It’s probably worth noting that this IP backchannel approach, targeted at getting rid of the Tuning Adapters, would not eliminate CableCARDs which serve a different function – enabling UDCPs (Unidirectional Digital Cable Ready Products) to access scrambled cable programming.

I must first point out that this proposed alternative is meant to replace the Tuning Adapters that TiVo itself helped develop (as described in my previous post and on TiVo’s website) and despite the fact that TiVo has admitted publicly that “there are no known issues with Tuning Adapters.” In addition, ARRIS (the manufacturer of Moxi, the second-leading CableCARD-enabled retail device) reports that Tuning Adapters “work in providing Moxi customers with access to SDV channels and give them the experience and functionality they expect from the UDCP.”

The Issue of Size

TiVo complained about the size of a Tuning Adapter and showed a picture of a Cisco Tuning Adapter sitting on top of a larger TiVo.

However, the Motorola Tuning Adapter is smaller than Cisco’s and is much smaller than the TiVo device, as can be seen in this photo (Also shown above). Also, TiVo actively markets a Western Digital Hard Drive for its customers to use whose size is comparable to the Cisco Tuning Adapter, as shown in this side-by-side photograph (Also seen to the right).

The fact that Tuning Adapters work is much more important than their size. The reason they are their current size is because they have not been needed in sufficient volume for manufacturers to justify the cost of designing a smaller form factor.

It’s important to note that only a tiny percentage of cable customers need a Tuning Adapter. Thus, one key advantage of the Tuning Adapter is that it is scaled precisely to its purpose: It is deployed only to those customers who 1) use UDCPs with a USB port and the necessary firmware, 2) subscribe to a system deploying SDV, and 3) wish to receive SDV channels.

Should all cable systems be reengineered in order to accommodate this small number of TiVo users when it has always been clear that UDCP devices could not receive two-way services and there is already a means for them to access SDV programming?

The Not-Ready-For-Primetime Proposal

Unlike the Tuning Adapter, TiVo’s IP proposal is not ready for primetime and would impose unnecessary costs on the vast majority of cable subscribers who don’t need this additional functionality.

For starters, TiVo’s IP proposal doesn’t address what’s to be done about security and authentication or how new standards and protocols should be established that will address the wide variety of equipment used in the field.

The FCC also asks whether TiVo’s solution would result in unnecessary costs, acting as a disincentive for investment by the cable industry in switched digital. This is a reasonable question, because what TiVo’s proposal seeks is to force cable operators to engineer and deploy a new pathway to their headends to accept communication from one-way retail devices when a satisfactory solution already exists. As TiVo has said in another context, “if Congress or the Commission chooses a particular technological implementation over other technically feasible alternatives, innovation will be choked off.”

TiVo brushes off concerns about development costs, claiming, “No technical problems need to be ‘solved’ for the Commission to move forward with these reforms – just some choices, involving existing technologies, to be made.” However, Cisco’s comments estimate that 30-42 months would be required to implement TiVo’s proposal, and even that schedule assumes resolution of the technical uncertainties that now exist. In its filing, ARRIS warned, “Any alternative approach would need to be evaluated for the incremental investment it demands of operators and suppliers alike, along with operator implementation costs and risks.”

Instead, we think there is a better way forward for consumers. As we say our filing:

There may well be creative IP solutions and technological designs for interactive services, but they should be addressed for all MVPDs on an AllVid basis in the NOI, not in this short-term cable-centric proceeding.

Read this blog post from NCTA President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow, in which he argues that “the only way a retail video device marketplace can fully work for consumers is if all MVPDs participate.” That’s the path forward that will offer the greatest return.

Standard cable service, both analog and digital, works on a “broadcast” model, in which every available channel is sent to every subscriber all of the time, regardless of what is actually being watched. Sending more channels than you’re actually watching just takes up more of the capacity on the cable pipe – capacity that could be used for other important purposes.

As this article succinctly puts it:

One of the primary benefits of SDV is that it frees up bandwidth because it only delivers the channel a customer is viewing.

In previous posts – like this one on net neutrality or this one on consumption-based billing – we’ve referred to the competing demands on network bandwidth. Your local cable system has a finite amount of capacity over which to provide all of the voice, video, and data services that its consumers demand.  A tool like SDV is one method of clearing up bandwidth for other services, allowing your cable provider to offer faster broadband speeds, more HD and niche programming, and other new services.

That’s why the FCC has endorsed cable’s use of SDV (For example, see this FCC Order regarding deployment of SDV by Cox and Time Warner Cable.).  Other multichannel video providers use SDV, including AT&T’s U-verse service, which is 100% switched digital.

Two-Way Services Need Interactivity

Some people want to receive digital cable service with devices other than a cable-provided set-top box, such as a TiVo DVR.  For purposes of authentication, a CableCARD needs to be used as part of that connection. You can read this blog post to get the background on CableCARDs, but the salient detail here is that the  2002 agreement between the cable and consumer electronics industries that led to CableCARDs only covered devices that receive one-way cable services, such as the channels that are continually “broadcast” on the cable pipe without anyone actually requesting them.

These one-way devices are known by the long – yet descriptive – name “Unidirectional Digital Cable Ready Products.”  UDCPs were never designed or intended to be able to receive Video-on-Demand, electronic program guides, and other two-way services that require interaction between a set-top box and the cable operator’s plant – and the FCC required UDCP manufacturers to expressly warn consumers of those limitations.

Based on the description above, you might easily surmise that SDV requires interactivity.  A channel request goes up the line to your cable provider, and then the requested content is sent back.

Even though UDCP devices were never intended to receive content delivered over a two-way platform, the cable industry and TiVo worked together to develop a solution for consumers who were using TiVo UDCP devices on systems where some channels were delivered using SDV.  That solution is called a “Tuning Adapter,” because it is a device that connects to a consumer’s TiVo box and provides the two-way functionality to request (or “tune” to) SDV content.  A TiVo press release (NCTA and TiVo Announce Switched Digital Solution for HD DVRs) and this 2007 news story (TiVo, NCTA Team Up on Switched Digital) outline the joint development.

In April, the FCC launched two proceedings about video devices, one of which asked questions about whether Tuning Adapters are working.  Although TiVo’s website asserted that the Tuning Adapter “works well” for accessing SDV content (TiVo’s website declared “there are no known issues with Tuning Adapters and Premiere/XL, TiVo HD/XL, and Series3 HD DVRs”), TiVo is now proposing that the FCC mandate a completely different solution. Or as Todd Spangler put it in Multichannel News, TiVo wants to replace “the Tuning Adapter that cable developed in conjunction with TiVo.”

My next post will look into just that issue.

To start the conversation, Powell asked Brian Roberts if cable should be worried about online video.  Roberts responded that every new medium presents a new opportunity, but said they all present avenues to deliver lawful content; the more opportunities for that, the better.

Andreessen (who shared details of his 36 port HDMI switch with 36 different inputs and a $4,000 per month commercial Internet connection) said that was the right way to look at the future – since every device is now expected to be Internet-enabled, and to allow content consumption.

Rothman chimed in to agree, but said that creates a requirement that content be compelling.  Without compelling content, you just have a bunch of devices to check baseball scores.  Rothman says the key to content online is two-fold.  First, the most important piece of content is good storytelling.  Second, that storytelling must be accompanied by a way to protect and monetize content.

The various models of monetization became a hot topic and Powell noted that customers may have different thoughts about the monetization process – so cable operators may end up fighting with consumers.

Moonves answered by noting that, for his company, there used to be one source of revenue – advertising – but now there are many more, such as syndication, retransmission fees, DVDs,  iTunes, Hulu, etc.  That presents more options to address the monetization question.

The introduction of the topic of advertising led Powell to ask what impact services like Facebook will have, since they present a new, and possibly competing, set of audience segmentation data.  Powell noted the industry no longer has the exclusive on audience data.

Bewkes suggested all the different entities must become partners in the sharing of audience data, and Moonves said one of the essentials is accurate eyeball measurement – and we don’t have that yet.

Andreessen suggest Facebook can be an enabler of content by providing data, and also by sharing content with friends.

Roberts said people may go to other providers  – not because the content is different, but because the experience is different or cooler.  As a result, it is incumbent upon cable to stay fresh and cool, and spend more time on the interface.

Asked what makes them nervous, the panelists suggested that the uncertainty of regulatory change was a great challenge.

Moonves joked, “Whenever they say it’s not about the money, it’s all about the money.”

While most noted the agreement between industry players Sprint and Clearwire to provide mobile outside their service areas, there were differing business plans on display.  Stephen Bye noted Cox Communications plans to build its own wireless network using current 3G technology, but also noted the ease of upgrading to LTE in the longer term.  That approach puts Cox at odds with most of the other operators.

Comcast’s Avgiris, for instance, noted the different approach cable operators had taken to telephony years ago.  Rather than try to develop a circuit-switched network, many cable operators began pursuing a VoIP solution that would allow them to be competitive without high upfront costs.

Similarly, Avgiris said companies like Comcast and Time Warner are looking at Wi-Fi networks and dual mode smartphones to deliver their wireless offerings.

Cablevision’s Bickham discussed the deployment of their Optimum WiFi service in the New York area (see this earlier post), and the agreement between Time Warner, Comcast, and Cablevision to allow Wi-Fi roaming across each others’ networks (see this Multichannel News article).

All agreed that wireless would be a key part of the bundle of services offered by cable operators, but most spoke to the consumer benefits of that.  It’s no longer about bundling services just to save money, it’s about the experience.  When customers can use their mobile device as a gateway and player for their home based services, that becomes a powerful driver for consumer interaction.

First, I appreciate Ars giving me the opportunity to provide a guest post on the issue of Selectable Output Control.  And, like someone lost in the desert, I suppose I should just be grateful for a cup of water and take Ars’ agreement that this issue really isn’t about “hobbling” consumers’ equipment – despite what SOC opponents have been arguing for months.

But Matthew Lasar’s response now shifts the debate from hobbling existing TVs to the inevitable slippery slope: If the FCC grants a waiver for early release movies, Ars argues that next will come use of SOC for the “Big Game” (which won’t likely involve my Washington Redskins), a key episode of Mad Men (perhaps where Don divorces Betty and moves in with Peggy because she has a TV that works with SOC), and, Lord knows, it will then be used to provide exclusive showings of a film of the JFK assassination  that will prove that the Zapruder film was part of the “cover-up.”

But the truth is that there is no studio-cable-DBS cabal to deny consumers viewing opportunities; rather, we’d like to give our customers content they would not otherwise receive without our ability to use SOC.  Forgotten now is that the cable industry supported the adoption of the FCC ban on SOC as part of a compromise with the consumer electronics industry in which both industries recommended one-way Plug & Play rules to the FCC. We did so while recognizing – as did the consumer electronics industry and the FCC – that waivers would be granted upon a showing that the public interest would be served by waiving the rule, for example where the waiver proponent demonstrates that the content is a “new business model” advantageous to consumers. Therefore, the FCC must decide in each particular case whether SOC should be permitted. To me, it is crazy that the government is in this business of deciding outputs/inputs at all.  But the FCC’s role ensures there isn’t a slippery slope; the proponent of a waiver must prove each time that the proposed service is something beneficial to consumers.

Putting aside the debate over the use (or abuse) of SOC, I have a particular concern with the claim that our television services are part of some “public network” akin to the public switched telephone network and therefore subject to some special regulation which restricts our business in ways not allowed with regard to other businesses. To be sure, our video services are subject to government regulation – at the federal, state and local levels – but we aren’t like telephone companies (which built their systems with captive ratepayers and a government-guaranteed rate of return) or even radio and television broadcasters (who were given public airwaves for free, but in return had to adhere to certain “public interest” requirements).  Our industry had no government-guaranteed return or government-granted public airwaves – to the extent we used any public resources, we paid for our rights-of-way with local franchise fees. Indeed, the cable industry built analog networks, our new digital networks, our cable modem and digital phone services with private risk capital with no assured return.

If the goal is innovation to meet rapidly-changing consumer demands, the old-style public utility model is exactly the wrong way to go.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a discussion with Ars and its readers and look forward to more in the future.

It seems that post has now garnered the attention of Ars Technica in a larger missive that puts the Motion Picture Association of America at the heart of a vast conspiracy to Take Over the Internet (or something like that).

I’d like to tackle their comments, and dive a bit more into the benefits that selectable output control brings to consumers.

It seems that Public Knowledge and Ars would like us to focus on the number of people who would be unable to view content protected by SOC.  We’re optimists, we prefer to focus on the entertainment options available to everyone else.

Let’s look again at Kyle’s iPod analogy:

When Apple introduced the “Classic” iPod with the ability to rent movies, earlier generation iPods still functioned well, played music, and (for 5G iPods) played video, but they didn’t play rentals. Apple’s release didn’t suddenly render your older version useless, but you needed to purchase the Classic to get access to the video rental library. So while your “older” device may not have all of the features of the latest model, it certainly still works as intended when you bought it and isn’t “screwed up.”

If you follow the argument made by Ars/Public Knowledge, there would have been a massive outcry against the new iPod and its rental feature.  Instead, here is what Ars itself had to say on the subject:

Apple has answered the calls of consumers and critics with a slick, friendly movie rental section. After playing with it for a week, I’m still inclined to say that it’s off to a strong start. Though other services may have a superior catalogs (for now) or integration with other living room devices, none reach iTunes’ signature ease-of-use or integration with the world’s most popular digital media players.

And what did Ars say about restrictions on the use of the new iPod?

As for why movie rentals have these specific new DRM rules applied to them, they’re clearly conditions enforced by studios interested in locking down their rental content in every way possible. A crack for iTunes DRM is a scary prospect for execs interested in protecting their content and getting paid their dues, and a movie that typically sells for $15-20 at retail getting cracked for as little as $2.99 must be even more insomnia-inducing. These were likely some of the compromises Apple had to make in order to score all the major studios, and perhaps to launch a digital rental section in the first place.

Ars clearly recognizes that protection of content played a critical role in content owners being open to providing that content via the iTunes store.  They are exactly right that such protections were likely a prerequisite for iTunes rentals launching at all.  What Ars is now arguing against, however, is exactly the same protection being afforded to exactly the same content but just on a different platform, Video-on-Demand (VOD).

Movie studios are unwilling to make blockbuster movies available  prior to DVD release  if they don’t have some assurance that the movie won’t be copied and widely distributed.

That fact, however, does not “break” all the TVs now being viewed any more than the iTunes rentals “broke” previous versions of the iPod.

I had a 5G iPod when the Classic came out.  I now have a Classic iPod (I like to watch rental movies on it when I travel).  My kids now have a 5G iPod.  It still plays purchased movies. It still plays music. It still plays games.  It’s not broken at all.  In fact, since Apple makes many of the movies in its library available for sale before they’re available for rent, that old 5G can actually play more content than my Classic.

The world of selectable output control works exactly the same way.  That TV in your den that’s connected with analog cables can still view most of the vast array of “on demand” content.  It can still play all the TV programs you’re used to.  It can still be connected to your DVD player, your TiVo, and even your PC.  What it won’t be able to do is play certain new content offerings without an HDMI connection.

Does that sound broken to you?

Delivering the latest movies to consumers’ homes – far earlier than they can watch those movies at home today – should and can be the next big idea.  Why shouldn’t you be able to watch the latest movie in the comfort of your own living room (and on your own schedule) months before you can now buy it on DVD or watch it through conventional video-on-demand?  We think you should be able to and are working with the movie studios to make it happen.

Consumers, content companies and distributors all benefit if more content is out in the marketplace sooner.  Imagine, for example, what this would mean to those who can’t even get to the movie theater for health or other reasons.

However, delivering this high-value content has to be done properly or the system that produces content won’t be able to financially survive.  High-quality content (most movie productions take years from start to finish) is expensive to create and content owners rightly need adequate protection against indiscriminate and unauthorized distribution of their content to take this next step. While content producers already make some less expensive independent movies available to cable at the same time they are in theaters, it’s clear that major studios will not release their blockbuster films early unless we can guarantee proper protection. (To a certain extent, mid-level budget movies benefit even more from being protected from piracy.)

Some people think copyright protection doesn’t need to be taken seriously. For example, note this comment: “Piracy is like a cockroach – you can’t stop it.” If you think it’s not a problem, forget the street vendors selling bootleg DVDs – go to your favorite search engine and type in the name of a movie, plus the word “torrent.”

Getting Content Out Earlier Through SOC

The FCC has, as it happens, set up a process for approving the use of something called Selectable Output Control (SOC) that can provide content owners with the confidence they need to distribute their high-value content sooner.  In 2008, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) asked the FCC to support SOC for this purpose.  NCTA met with Commission officials back in September to express our support for the waiver and filed this letter afterwards.

Somewhat surprisingly, the SOC waiver has run into opposition by some who are concerned that it would limit choice for consumers.

For example, the group Public Knowledge (PK) has been very active on this issue. See their letters here, here, here, and here, as well as this alert urging consumers to “Tell the FCC to Say ‘No’ to the Cable Kill Switch.”

PK includes a link to this video with Harold Feld, in which he argues that SOC “breaks 25 million television sets,” and causes your personal devices – such as your TiVo or Slingbox – to no longer function.

In the video, Feld says that movie studios, as well as cable operators and DBS providers, would “like to be able to remotely turn off your Slingbox, turn off your DVR, turn off anything that’s coming out of the TV set that we don’t directly control.”

As an additional example, see this Ars Technica post, which says that the “output changes [MPAA] wants could, in fact, hobble some home video systems.”

SOC Does Not Break Your TV

We addressed the charge that SOC “breaks” devices when we filed Reply Comments last summer on the waiver. We noted that the Consumer Electronics Association and its affiliated group the Home Recording Rights Coalition made the argument that such a move would “put at risk… very ‘early adopters’” and that it was important to maintain “the value of devices in which consumers invested earliest and most heavily.”

We noted that existing devices are not harmed.  If you have a TV set that doesn’t support SOC, then you wouldn’t be able to order these new movies releases anyway. But nothing prevents your TV from doing all the things it can do now.

The situation is analogous to any early adopter who acquires new equipment which, with the passage of time, cannot access as easily or at all new services coming down the road. From computers to cell phones to televisions, that has been and likely always will be the case. The important point is that nothing is being taken away from those consumers, and other consumers with more capable devices will have more viewing options. Indeed, there can be no public interest justification for denying new choices to a majority of consumers simply because a small minority cannot avail themselves of those choices.

Both Public Knowledge and Ars Technica have argued that the MPAA’s bid for selectable output control could force some consumers to buy new home theater equipment. But that isn’t even close to accurate – both MPAA and NCTA have demonstrated that an SOC waiver simply means that a consumer’s current gear without protected connectors will work exactly the same way it does today, and newer generation devices with protected connectors (including devices in homes today) will be able to take advantage of the earlier release of movies under an SOC waiver.

When Apple introduced the “Classic” iPod with the ability to rent movies, earlier generation iPods still functioned well, played music, and (for 5G iPods) played video, but they didn’t play rentals. Apple’s release didn’t suddenly render your older version useless, but you needed to purchase the Classic to get access to the video rental library. So while your “older” device may not have all of the features of the latest model, it certainly still works as intended when you bought it and isn’t “screwed up.”

Technology changes all the time.  And the pace and intensity of innovation across the board in technology, communications networks, and consumer electronics is undoubtedly going to raise these types of issues with greater frequency.  I don’t pretend that these issues are necessarily easy.  But it does strike me that in order to continue providing consumers more services, more choices and the opportunity to do things they currently can’t do today . . . we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Not all consumers are going to be first adopters; not all technology changes are going to instantly, seamlessly and magically work on every device currently in the marketplace.  Taking practical steps, like approving the SOC waiver, that move us down the path of greater consumer choice is a far better policy choice than standing pat, or pretending that creators of content are going to accept unnecessary risks with their investment.