# FCC Media Bureau seeks comment on Charter waiver request



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

http://broadcastengineering.com/regulation/media-bureau-seeks-comment-charter-waiver-request

http://www.multichannel.com/cable-operators/charter-wants-downloadable-set-top-security/140115

Here is a link to my filing in opposition to the waiver request -->

http://www.scribd.com/doc/114647954/Biller-Filing-Nov-2012-Charter-Waiver-Integrated-Security-Comments


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

I gotta respect the smackdown you gave Charter there. lol. :up:

I think we'd all be for 86'ing the silly cablecards, but there's gotta be a universal standard in its place. Don't see anything "open-standard" about this.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> I gotta respect the smackdown you gave Charter there. lol. :up:
> 
> I think we'd all be for 86'ing the silly cablecards, but there's gotta be a universal standard in its place. Don't see anything "open-standard" about this.


Thanks BigJim... It'll be interesting to see the other filings that are made in support or opposition to Charters waiver request. Rutledge clearly has a lot of influence with the FCC but I hope they take a very close look at this and deny his request. Its most definitely *NOT *in the best interest of TiVo users.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Yeah, nice response, although this is nothing new. CableLabs and its member CATV companies have been trying to produce a downloadable security system since 2005. Indeed, it is quite reasonable to argue the only reason the CATV companies came out in such a hurry with the Tuning Adapter was to stave off the 3rd party manufacturer's push to ratify DCR+, because the CATV companies all wanted tru2way and downloadable security, but could not make it work in time, while DCR+ was already functional. 'Looks like they are finally ready for a roll-out. I hope they get cut off at the knees.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That's not in the best interest of anyone! That's basically reverting things to the way they use to be. The lack of bidirectional communication in the current CableCARD standard is bad enough. If they switch to something like this retail DVRs will disappear completely.

I really, really, wish the FCC would grow a pair and force all TV providers (DSS and U-verse included) to adhere to something like AllVid. That would truly make retail DVRs portable and would likely bolster competition in the retail DVR market way beyond where it is now. (TiVo could use some competition to light a fire under them)

Dan


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> That's not in the best interest of anyone! That's basically reverting things to the way they use to be. The lack of bidirectional communication in the current CableCARD standard is bad enough. If they switch to something like this retail DVRs will disappear completely.
> 
> I really, really, wish the FCC would grow a pair and force all TV providers (DSS and U-verse included) to adhere to something like AllVid. That would truly make retail DVRs portable and would likely bolster competition in the retail DVR market way beyond where it is now. (TiVo could use some competition to light a fire under them)
> 
> Dan


Dan,

Agree that AllVid would be nice but removing the friction associated with the hardware CableCARD with a an open standard and identical software downloadable successor to CableCARD that works across all MVPDs would be a step in the right direction to improve retail adoption of TiVo and other 3rd party retail solutions.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

I agree that any new standard should be bidirectional. The Tuning adapter must die.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Would also be nice to be able to access all the VOD content I pay for but currently have no way to watch.

Dan


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

The sad thing is that if Charter gets this waiver then they'll turn around and use their investment in this technology as a reason to argue against any future regulations intended to open up access. 

They shouldn't be permitted to circumvent the integration ban based on vague promises premised around standards that don't exist or aren't openly available.

I wonder if it would be possible to create a filing opposing this and allow people here on the forum to "sign" to indicate their opposition.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

CuriousMark said:


> I agree that any new standard should be bidirectional. The Tuning adapter must die.


I have to vote, "No", on that. The inevitable result of a such a move is abandoning the current devices, which means purchasing new ones. In itself, that would not be too bad, but the next-gen devices are only likely to be even worse than the Premiere on most fronts, which just will not do, and are virtually certain to be locked into DRM, which is utterly unacceptable. That, plus I never had any great amount of trouble with the TAs. OTOH, forcing a network solution, rather than a USB solution, would work well, even with S3 TiVos.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Would also be nice to be able to access all the VOD content I pay for but currently have no way to watch.


There is nothing preventing that with the current technology, including Series III. It is entirely a matter of CATV company policy, said policy specifically and explicitly allowed by FCC regs. A brief stroke of the pen would rectify that issue instantly.

'Not that I really care. I never used VOD when I worked for the CATV company (and it was all free), and I don't use it now that I am with a CATV company that does allow it (with their leased Premieres).


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

lrhorer said:


> 'Not that I really care. I never used VOD when I worked for the CATV company (and it was all free), and I don't use it now that I am with a CATV company that does allow it (with their leased Premieres).


While I admit that I will likely use it less often in the future, I *did* end up using VOD over my Thanksgiving break a lot&#8230;. even for shows I already had Tivoed.

Why? Because I record the SD channels. (Even if I had a 2 TB hard drive, it would get full very quickly, since I like to batch up shows and then watch them later -- some even next summer to have new to me stuff all year around.) I caught up on Last Resort and watched a couple of Revolution in HD On Demand, even though I had them Tivoed (in SD). Those don't let you FF, but they have comparatively short ads (I still watched something ELSE on my XS32 recorder and paid attention to the orig show in PIP while the commercial was on).

Even though I have padding on my Daily Show & Colbert Report SPs, I had manually rescheduled some, and those didn't have padding, so I missed the end of one of the shows. So I used VOD to catch the very ending (those DO let me FF).

I realize the VOD won't let me do the 'batch up and watch next summer', though some shows have the 'view previous season' functionality.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> OTOH, forcing a network solution, rather than a USB solution, would work well, even with S3 TiVos.


I would vote for a network solution also. Backward compatibility should matter.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lrhorer said:


> I have to vote, "No", on that. The inevitable result of a such a move is abandoning the current devices, which means purchasing new ones. In itself, that would not be too bad, but the next-gen devices are only likely to be even worse than the Premiere on most fronts, which just will not do, and are virtually certain to be locked into DRM, which is utterly unacceptable. That, plus I never had any great amount of trouble with the TAs. OTOH, forcing a network solution, rather than a USB solution, would work well, even with S3 TiVos.


You wanting to hold on to old technology because it's more hackable isn't really a valid argument.

Although I think there would be a lot of angry people if they suddenly switched from CableCARD to something and obsoleted all the CableCARD devices in existence. If some sort of new standard does come along they'll likely be forced to support CableCARDs and tuning adapters for many more years.

Dan


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017145278

*Summary: *

The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) opposes this waiver application. Although Charter seeks a waiver only for a two year transition period to an era of downloadable security that purportedly would satisfy Charters obligations under Section 76.1204(a)(1), the technology described in this Petition would not, in fact, satisfy Charters obligations under that rule, either in the two year transition period or when Charters plan has been fully implemented. Nothing in the Petition or in considered FCC precedent indicates that this technology is or should be deemed compliant or consistent with Section 6293 or with 47CFR 76.1204(a)(1). If the FCC is to give any consideration to issues raised by Charter it should be in the context of a Commission rulemaking addressing the core issue that Charter purports to, but fails, to raise: In an all-digital and IP-delivery era, the FCC needs to identify a new, secure, open, and nationally standard interface between MVPD services and retail devices.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> You wanting to hold on to old technology because it's more hackable isn't really a valid argument.


If the proposed new technology costs more (it does) and is unable to perform as well (it massively does), then it certainly is. It simply cannot do the things I absolutely demand of a DVR, and any other device I own, for that matter.



Dan203 said:


> Although I think there would be a lot of angry people if they suddenly switched from CableCARD to something and obsoleted all the CableCARD devices in existence. If some sort of new standard does come along they'll likely be forced to support CableCARDs and tuning adapters for many more years.


That is not CableLabs desire.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lrhorer said:


> If the proposed new technology costs more (it does) and is unable to perform as well (it massively does), then it certainly is. It simply cannot do the things I absolutely demand of a DVR, and any other device I own, for that matter.


A TiVo Premiere is cheaper then the TiVo HD was, so how does it cost more? And as far as performance... If you use the SDUI the Premiere hardware is significantly faster then a TiVo HD. The HDUI is slow, but that's not an apples to apples comparison.

Be honest... The reason you like the older units has nothing to do with price or performance. It has to do with the fact that you can hack them and disable the copy protection. But like it or not that is contrary to the interests of the industry, and it's something they are actively working to prevent not oblige.

Dan


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

The only other comment filed was from Public Knowledge opposing the waiver request. That makes a total number of 3 comments filed, all opposed to the waiver request. I'm very surprised we didn't see more opposition.

Public Knowledge Opposition

Charter's Reply Comment are due Monday (Dec 10). I'm not sure if there will be additional comments filed after that but IIRC there is another period for replies to Charters new Reply Comments.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022079056



> The Alliance supports the Opposition filed by the Consumer Electronics Association, and renews its request that the Commission move forward with a
> rulemaking to ensure retail competition in the market for devices to access Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) services, as directed by Congress over fifteen years ago.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022079046

*Summary:*



> BBT has developed an inexpensive, efficient and potentially portable way to establish a secure communications path which then can be used to download various (and multiple) types of conditional access security. Charter is now proposing to experiment with a different approach to the same goal. The Commission should, as it has in the case ofBBT, follow the clear desire of Congress to avoid actions which could have the effect of freezing or chilling the development of new technologies and services. It should encourage the development and deployment of downloadable security to continue in whatever way it can.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022078929

*Summary*



> [G]rant of the requested waiver will benefit consumers and will further the Commissions objectives for the development of a next-generation, competitive marketplace for navigation devices, without undermining the purpose of the integration ban.


Charter's response took two lengthy paragraphs from my comments and concludes,



> The opposition comments object to any form of security in any cable operator leased device that differs from CableCARD.(5)
> 
> (5) Mr. Biller incorrectly states that [t]he concept of common reliance means that all MVPDs and all retail set-top box manufacturers rely on the same conditional access security system for all of their navigation devices.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022085395


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022087379

In summary, allowing Charter to implement a lower-cost alternative to CableCARD while not at the same time providing a lower-cost alternative to CableCARD that will in fact support retail navigation devices as intended by Congress will undermine the competitive environment and further degrade the competitive marketplace for retail navigation devices. Charters waiver should thus be denied as not being in the public interest.


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

Thanks for the update. Do you have a link to the overall case schedule?


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

jrtroo said:


> Thanks for the update. Do you have a link to the overall case schedule?


I need to investigate the timeline. I will update when I find out.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I appreaciate you taking the time to fight back againt Charter on this. It's nice to have so eone fighting for he interest of the public on this. 

Dan


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

Thanks Dan!

As far as a timeline for the ruling from the Media Bureau. It looks like the most recent Waiver request was 12-230 where TiVo petitioned the Media Bureau for a waiver of the IP output requirement. The public notice was made on 8/16/2012 and the Media Bureau granted the Waiver request on 11/28/2012.

If I apply a similar timeline to Charters request, it says we should have a ruling sometime in February. Since it appears that the comments are just about done I think its possible the Media Bureau could issue their ruling sometime in January.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

I think it is usually 90 days. 30 days for initial comments, 30 days for responses to comments, and 30 days for final comments.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

innocentfreak said:


> I think it is usually 90 days. 30 days for initial comments, 30 days for responses to comments, and 30 days for final comments.


I just re-read the public notice. I don't think Charter will have an opportunity to issue final comments. I've sent a question to a contact I have at the FCC to see if he can provide a timeline.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

I heard back from my FCC contact. 

The ruling will likely be issue in January.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

In the end the FCC will probably side with Charter anyway. Good to know though.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I really, really, hope you're wrong. Charter is basically trying to get back to the old system of having integrated security. They say they're going to continue to support CableCARD but how long will that last?

sbiller's letter is right. Developing downloadable security technology is fine, but it needs to be an open standard available to makers of retail devices too. What they're doing is transitioning back to the old way under the guise of saving money and a promise that they will continue to support retail devices. But we already know that they can't be trusted to keep the consumer's best interest in mind and if this is allowed to happen 10 years from now we'll be in the same boat we were in before CableCARD came along.

Dan


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

They really didn't get any supportive comments on their waiver request. I expected a Cablevision or the NCTA to conditionally support but they didn't. I would be floored if the FCC granted the waiver.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> I really, really, hope you're wrong.
> Dan


I do too. I just at this point have little faith in the FCC ever doing the right thing.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

innocentfreak said:


> I do too. I just at this point have little faith in the FCC ever doing the right thing.


There are some good people at the FCC trying to do the right thing. My POC actually initiated contact with me after some anti-competitive tactics BHN was engaged in surrounding SDV a few years back. My filing/complaint at the time sparked his interest. I have trouble seeing how the FCC can reverse their stance on common reliance and grant this waiver. Charter hasn't made a good case.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

sbiller said:


> They really didn't get any supportive comments on their waiver request. I expected a Cablevision or the NCTA to conditionally support but they didn't. I would be floored if the FCC granted the waiver.


Why? The FCC doesn't have the consumer's interest at heart in this space, based on recent rulings granting clear QAM encryption and continued delays/rollovers about AllVid and open IP access to conditional stream delivery. All of which is perfectly understandable when you have commissioners leaving for jobs in the very industries they regulate.

I'm sure there are good people working in the trenches of the FCC just as in any business or gov't bureau. But they're not the ones getting the payoffs at the top.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

sbiller said:


> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022087379
> 
> In summary, allowing Charter to implement a lower-cost alternative to CableCARD while not at the same time providing a lower-cost alternative to CableCARD that will in fact support retail navigation devices as intended by Congress will undermine the competitive environment and further degrade the competitive marketplace for retail navigation devices. Charters waiver should thus be denied as not being in the public interest.


The market place for retail cable navigation devices is nearly extinct already.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> The market place for retail cable navigation devices is nearly extinct already.


TiVo sold 114,000 Premiere Boxes in the past year (10/31/11 - 10/31/12). Its a small number but its not close to extinction. This is in an environment where the cable operators have been slowly losing video subscribers. Granted they've lost more subscribers because of series 2 and series 3 churn but TiVo's churn number of 1.4% last quarter was the lowest number in over six years.

I don't see the FCC abandoning common reliance anytime soon. We may still be many years away from AllVid but a software downloadable replacement for CableCARD that worked across all MVPDs would be a first step.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> Why? The FCC doesn't have the consumer's interest at heart in this space, based on recent rulings granting clear QAM encryption and continued delays/rollovers about AllVid and open IP access to conditional stream delivery. All of which is perfectly understandable when you have commissioners leaving for jobs in the very industries they regulate.


They did improve the deployment of CableCARDs with the self-install rules that went into effect in 2011. I think there were good arguments on both sides about clear QAM encryption versus cable theft, etc. Like you, I'm frustrated on the lack of progress with AllVid, etc. I think a software downloadable replacement to CableCARD could be a first step from a crawl, walk, run perspective.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

sbiller said:


> TiVo sold 114,000 Premiere Boxes in the past year (10/31/11 - 10/31/12). Its a small number but its not close to extinction. This is in an environment where the cable operators have been slowly losing video subscribers. Granted they've lost more subscribers because of series 2 and series 3 churn but TiVo's churn number of 1.4% last quarter was the lowest number in over six years.
> 
> I don't see the FCC abandoning common reliance anytime soon. We may still be many years away from AllVid but a software downloadable replacement for CableCARD that worked across all MVPDs would be a first step.


Tivo only has about half the subscribers that they had in 2006 and I think about 20% of the remaining subscriptions are with MSOs. Of course the churn rate is going to be lower since the remaining retail customers are more loyal. I think Tivo only has about 10% of the total DVR subscribers. How much more lopsided can it get?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Those numbers are a bit skewed. In 2006 they didn't separate the numbers and a large portion of those subscribers were DirecTV users which TiVo only got like $1/mo for.

TiVo has had a serious uphill battle in the cable market. Until recently MSOs made installing CableCARDs as difficult as possible, with most requiring a $30+ "truck roll". Then there is SDV and the tuning adapter problem, over use of copy protection to diminish some of TiVo's premium features, etc... Only very recently have things really started to fall in line. With the addition of streaming to the TiVo platform, the release of 4 tuner units, and MSOs being forced to allow self installs of CableCARDs owning a TiVo is finally back to the point where it's worth the premium over the cable DVR. If Charter get's this waiver then all that progress could be wiped out quickly.

Dan


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

sbiller said:


> TiVo sold 114,000 Premiere Boxes in the past year (10/31/11 - 10/31/12). Its a small number but its not close to extinction.


But what about profitability? I know I should go look at the 10Ks (??), but haven't they only been profitable recently due to the DISH settlement?

I'm not following the FCC's workings lately, but wow, I just did a bit of googling and it's coming up on 10 years to when the previous FCC commissioner called Tivo "God's machine"!


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

mattack said:


> But what about profitability? I know I should go look at the 10Ks (??), but haven't they only been profitable recently due to the DISH settlement?


TiVo made $0.72/share last year primarily due to the $175 million up front royalty payment from Dish in April 2011 and $54 million up front payment from AT&T in January 2012. The $78.4 million up front payment from Verizon last quarter will help but TiVo will have slightly negative EPS in the current fiscal year.










TiVo continues to invest a very high percentage of revenues in research & development although most analysts expect this R&D to trend downward over the next year or two. They also have large litigation expenses that will probably continue for quite some time due to current litigation with Arris (Google/Motorola), Time Warner Cable, and Cisco. Its possible that they may add some other Tier 1 MSOs to the litigation docket once they've resolved the current Moto litigation which goes to trial next April but will likely settle sooner.

The analyst consensus is that TiVo will become EPS profitable in calendar year 2014 when the true benefit of their current MSO deals starts to flow through the bottom-line. Most analysts also expect that retail subscriptions (TiVo-Owned) will continue to trend downward although I expect that its possible for TiVo-Owned subscriptions to remain flat and actually trend slowly upward once they release the Mini hardware to retail and if they continue to differentiate the platform with better software and hardware available to retail subscribers. I think a key driver of retail growth could be the availability of TiVo streams on 3rd party retail devices like the Roku, Xbox, Nintendo Wii U, Smart TVs, etc.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

sbiller said:


> They did improve the deployment of CableCARDs with the self-install rules that went into effect in 2011. I think there were good arguments on both sides about clear QAM encryption versus cable theft, etc. Like you, I'm frustrated on the lack of progress with AllVid, etc. I think a software downloadable replacement to CableCARD could be a first step from a crawl, walk, run perspective.


The clear QAM encryption decision almost entirely benefited the MSOs, not the consumer. Reductions in cable theft will not translate into lower rates for consumers and now every TV in your house will have to have a box, of which a couple at most will be free for a limited amount of time.

I agree that the card rule revisions benefited us, but if you look at some of the follow-up issues raised (Comcast overcharging for extra cards disguised as 'outlet fees', frex) and the FCC complaints about them that went nowhere, it's another half-baked set of rules. They mean nothing without enforcement.

But the AllVid rollover in particular was extremely disappointing, because it provided a way forward from cards not just for cable but for ALL MSOs. I fail to understand why they continue to ignore opening up access to U-Verse and sat provider channels. If AllVid had been implemented it would have truly made a third-party market (and competition) work for all TV options, but you can see a pattern at the FCC of ignoring the CEA, Tivo, Google, etc. in favor of the MSOs.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> But the AllVid rollover in particular was extremely disappointing, because it provided a way forward from cards not just for cable but for ALL MSOs. I fail to understand why they continue to ignore opening up access to U-Verse and sat provider channels. If AllVid had been implemented it would have truly made a third-party market (and competition) work for all TV options.


Doesn't the latest IP Output ruling apply to all MVPDs including AT&T and satellite providers? It appears that the DLNA Premium Video Profile will be the standard that most operators adopt. We also know that TiVo's partner will provide support for the DLNA Premium Video Profile.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

The only way to have a level playing field with cable cards is for the FCC to force the cable companies to stock pre-configured third party devices like Tivo so the customer can choose the device, take it home and start using it. The cable company must deduct the cost of the third party device and service from the customers cable bill.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> The only way to have a level playing field with cable cards is for the FCC to force the cable companies to stock pre-configured third party devices like Tivo so the customer can choose the device, take it home and start using it. The cable company must deduct the cost of the third party device and service from the customers cable bill.


In the case of TiVo, I think a software downloadable encryption that worked across all MVPDs would be a huge benefit. A consumer would bring their retail TiVo home, call or log into their cable operators web site to authenticate the encryption, and they would be up and running. This would eliminate the step of ordering a CableCARD or going to a local office to pick one up.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

sbiller said:


> Doesn't the latest IP Output ruling apply to all MVPDs including AT&T and satellite providers? It appears that the DLNA Premium Video Profile will be the standard that most operators adopt. We also know that TiVo's partner will provide support for the DLNA Premium Video Profile.


I don't see anything in it about sat or telco, just cable. I might be wrong but don't think they have the reg power to do anything about them, unfortuntely.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

sbiller said:


> In the case of TiVo, I think a software downloadable encryption that worked across all MVPDs would be a huge benefit. A consumer would bring their retail TiVo home, call or log into their cable operators web site to authenticate the encryption, and they would be up and running. This would eliminate the step of ordering a CableCARD or going to a local office to pick one up.


Absolutely, and it is exactly what cable doesn't want - a way to make it easier to run your own stuff.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

Source (registration required): http://consumerelectronicsdaily.com/Content/Charter-defends-CableCARD-waiver-request.aspx

Article Date: Wednesday, December 26 2012

*Charter Defends CableCARD Waiver Request as AllVid Alliance Attacks It*
_By Josh Wein_

Charter defended its request for a waiver from FCC CableCARD requirements, saying critics have misunderstood Charter's proposal and raised arguments the commission has repeatedly rejected in similar proceedings. Meanwhile, in reply comments, the AllVid Tech Company Alliance lodged its disapproval of Charter's request with the commission. And Beyond Broadband Technology, a company that sells downloadable security systems to cable operators, supported Charter's request and submitted an update on the status of downloadable security in the industry aimed at clarifying "misconceptions" about the technology.

Granting Charter's request would be a step backward, the AllVid alliance said (http://xrl.us/bn5wdg). "As we move to an all-digital and IP-delivery era, the Commission should not grant waivers to systems that will not, at a minimum, allow separation of security or portability," for devices, the alliance said. "Unless the Commission proceeds with an AllVid rulemaking, the markets for MVPD devices and for MVPD programming and services will continue to remain in essentially the same condition they were in when Congress enacted Section 629 in 1996," it said.

Charter said opponents of its waiver request "object to any form of security in any cable operator leased device that differs from CableCARD," a position the FCC has repeatedly ruled against. "Preference for a new regulatory regime is not grounds for denial of a waiver from an existing rule," it said (http://xrl.us/bn5wd3). Plus, if it gets the waiver, Charter will still be required to support and provide CableCARDs for use in customer-purchased devices, it said. "Charter will have far more than sufficient common reliance on CableCARDs through its prior deployments of millions of CableCARDs in its own leased devices," it said. "Grant of the waiver would benefit consumers by helping to advance new technologies."

Companies should be allowed to experiment with downloadable security options, Beyond Broadband Technology (BBT) wrote in its reply comments (http://xrl.us/bn5wfc). "While BBT clearly believes that its technology will prove to be the best approach to the challenge of downloadable security, we are not foolish enough to suggest that it is the only approach," it said. Charter's proposal, "certainly contains more promise than simply continuing to require distributors to deploy and consumers to pay for unused CableCARD technology." -- Josh Wein


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> I don't see anything in it about sat or telco, just cable. I might be wrong but don't think they have the reg power to do anything about them, unfortuntely.


It looks like you are correct on this front. In the ruling from the FCC is the following footnote:



> ATCA, TiVo, and CEA suggest that we mandate these particular means now, and move toward a rulemaking on device compatibility for all MVPDs. See ATCA Comments at 7; CEA Comments at 4-5; TiVo Petition at 7-8; ATCA Reply at 6-7; CEA Reply at 3. We agree with DIRECTV, MPAA, and NCTA that this is not the appropriate proceeding in which to address a devicecompatibility standard for all MVPDs because TiVos petition focused on Section 76.640, which applies solely to cable operators. See DIRECTV Reply at 2-4, MPAA Reply at 2, NCTA Reply at 2-4.


There is the following good news on the type of content that can be restricted,



> But we will take this opportunity to remind MPAA and MVPDs that the Commissions rules require cable service to be available through this output and that our existing rule on selectable output control prohibits cable operators from limiting the programming that goes out over this output (except for certain new release movies).


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

sbiller said:


> In the case of TiVo, I think a software downloadable encryption that worked across all MVPDs would be a huge benefit. A consumer would bring their retail TiVo home, call or log into their cable operators web site to authenticate the encryption, and they would be up and running. This would eliminate the step of ordering a CableCARD or going to a local office to pick one up.


Would Tivo be able to make this work on existing cable card Tivos, or would they need to sell you a new Tivo?


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> Would Tivo be able to make this work on existing cable card Tivos, or would they need to sell you a new Tivo?


That is a great question. If this is a software-only solution I would think its possible that it could be ported to the Series 4 platform. The processor requirements for a software decryption might require a faster processor so I would guess that it will be only available on a Series 5 box.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

A new TiVo filing hit the FCC docket today opposing waivers that weaken the CableCARD rules.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017159154



> TiVo stressed the importance of enforcing the existing CableCARD rules. Since the Commission strengthened the CableCARD rules in 2010, TiVos surveys of MSO compliance with CableCARD rules have shown generally increasing compliance  a sign that signaling continued FCC emphasis on enforcing CableCARD rules leads to greater compliance and furthers the goals of Section 629. TiVo expressed support for the development of new solutions that would enable retail boxes to access cable signals and urged the Commission not to grant any waivers that would undercut the CableCARD regulations, which the Commission strengthened in 2010, and stall the impetus for the development of a fully-compliant successor to CableCARD. Weakening CableCARD rules via waivers, lack of enforcement, or other means hurts innovation and retail choice, thwarting the common reliance goal of the CableCARD rules. Allowing operators to deploy set-top boxes that do not rely on the common CableCARD standard would permit them to offer additional services, features, or functionality not available to CableCARD devices and would put retail devices at a disadvantage, at odds with the clear command of Section 629.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

This is the key section that the FCC continues to ignore (an IP standard to succeed Cablecard):

_Finally, TiVo discussed the growing use of IP signals in all forms of delivery of 
video to the home, and the need for a successor standard to CableCARD that ensures 
the continued availability of signals in an IP world._

I think the FCC is hoping that the combo of DLNA/DTCP-IP + whatever will work it all out for them, but Tivo continues to ignore DLNA in its own devices. Silicondust has already moved ahead by putting DLNA/DTCP-IP in its Prime cablecard tuners but we'll need IP gateways from the MSOs that do the same without cards. Or better yet, give us the ability to access channels directly over IP with authentication.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

If there was a cable standard that actually used DLNA TiVo would develop a box that used it quickly. As it is now DLNA is still sort of a geek thing. After many years it's finally starting to go a little main stream, but it's adoption has been slow throughout the industry not just at TiVo. 

Personally I'm hoping that some day we see something along the lines of AllVid, where the tuning and authinication are handled by a small box which TiVos and other devices can access via IP. That way devices like TiVo can be provider agnostic. It would make investing thousands into a whole home DVR solution a lot easier for people if they had options when it came to providers. 

Dan


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> If there was a cable standard that actually used DLNA TiVo would develop a box that used it quickly. As it is now DLNA is still sort of a geek thing.


It's a geek thing if you're streaming from your NAS or PC to a PS3 or similar. But it's not a geek thing in the industry where many are banking on secure DLNA including Sling Media, who I spoke with at CES, and obviously CableLabs is OK with SiliconDust using it to move protected content.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

But that usage scenario is new. DLNA has been around for a decade and it's only now gaining traction as a main stream technology.

Dan


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> But that usage scenario is new. DLNA has been around for a decade and it's only now gaining traction as a main stream technology.
> 
> Dan


I believe though it is something they have been touting for years. Someone finally just got it to work, and it is in better shape now. I think this was one of reasons the cable companies gave for justification of the 18 month delay.

I believe Ben on Engadget HD made a comment about how the secure DLNA is re-announced every CES.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

innocentfreak said:


> I believe though it is something they have been touting for years. Someone finally just got it to work, and it is in better shape now. I think this was one of reasons the cable companies gave for justification of the 18 month delay.
> 
> I believe Ben on Engadget HD made a comment about how the secure DLNA is re-announced every CES.


That what I was saying. Even though the technology has existed for years it's only recently been put to practical use. And even then it's in a niche product. Even if they added it to TiVo it would still be niche. It needs to be adopted by the cable company as part of an AllVid like standard for it to really take off.

Dan


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Personally I'm hoping that some day we see something along the lines of AllVid, where the tuning and authinication are handled by a small box which TiVos and other devices can access via IP. That way devices like TiVo can be provider agnostic. It would make investing thousands into a whole home DVR solution a lot easier for people if they had options when it came to providers.
> 
> Dan


Comcast recently freed up at least 40 analog channels here and elsewhere, which gives them a TON of bandwidth to give us h.264 channels via IP direct access. We shouldn't even need a box (or 'tuners') to access any channels with IP - give us 100mb or so to divvy up however we see fit (and that's plenty h.264 streams), and give us a standard way to access them via DLNA/DTCP-IP or whatever.

AllVid's day has passed (not that it went anywhere) - we'll have to hope that some cableCo sees the light and gets us off this whole QAM tuner nonsense.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

slowbiscuit said:


> Comcast recently freed up at least 40 analog channels here and elsewhere, which gives them a TON of bandwidth to give us h.264 channels via IP direct access. We shouldn't even need a box (or 'tuners') to access any channels with IP - give us 100mb or so to divvy up however we see fit (and that's plenty h.264 streams), and give us a standard way to access them via DLNA/DTCP-IP or whatever.
> 
> AllVid's day has passed (not that it went anywhere) - we'll have to hope that some cableCo sees the light and gets us off this whole QAM tuner nonsense.


The advantage to using something like AllVid is that it is completely provider agnostic. The little box that is supplied by the provide could use any "tuning" technology it wanted as long as the output is a standard format. That means the same technology could be used to access DSS, cable or IP based solutions like U-verse. The box acts as a gateway between the TV or DVR so that it doesn't have to know or care which service it's connected to. It would be completely future proof because anything the providers come up with they can just add to the box and the TV/DVR would still talk to the box via a standard protocol.

What you're talking about might work OK for cable, but DSS doesn't have the bandwidth to provide every customer that sort of IP based solution.

Dan


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Nice thought but the FCC apparently has no authority to do anything about sat, as shown in the recent court ruling reversing the plug and play rules for them.

I've given up on the notion that anything will be done for all MVPDs, so let's just focus on the CableCard replacement now.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

But if they develop something akin to AllVid, even if it's cable only at the start, then the DSS providers might be forced into supporting it by market pressure. FIOS was technically exempt from using CableCARDs at first, but they supported them anyway because it was better for their customers. Maybe Dish and DirecTV would do the same if there was a viable technology that was compatible with their system.

Dan


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

That might be the only way we get to a standard, but I don't see it happening. I see IP delivery happening for cable and sat going their own route because the FCC doesn't care about AllVid or doing anything to lead us toward a standard for IP - they just deferred action on that until late next year to give cable more time to come up with something.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

FCC grants Charter's waiver for two years. Big problem here is second condition, which is that Charter can ditch Cablecard if they get just one CE manufacturer to deliver a device using their DCAS.

I'm failing to see why the FCC thinks it's a good thing that Charter can roll their own standard with the hope that others may follow, hopefully it will at minimum include DLNA w/DTCP-IP. If they did their job they would come to an agreement on a standard like AllVid, but we'll see.

http://www.multichannel.com/technology/charter-scores-set-top-waiver/142813


----------



## tatergator1 (Mar 27, 2008)

slowbiscuit said:


> FCC grants Charter's waiver for two years. Big problem here is second condition, which is that Charter can ditch Cablecard if they get just one CE manufacturer to deliver a device using their DCAS.
> 
> I'm failing to see why the FCC thinks it's a good thing that Charter can roll their own standard with the hope that others may follow, hopefully it will at minimum include DLNA w/DTCP-IP. If they did their job they would come to an agreement on a standard like AllVid, but we'll see.
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/technology/charter-scores-set-top-waiver/142813


While it says Charter will no longer have to provision new CableCards if the 3rd party device materializes, it clearly states the requirement of "indefinite" support of existing CableCards.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

tatergator1 said:


> While it says Charter will no longer have to provision new CableCards if the 3rd party device materializes, it clearly states the requirement of "indefinite" support of existing CableCards.


But if a 3rd party device rolls out as a current customer you wouldn't even be able to get another CableCARD if you wanted to add another TiVo. Also since the condition states they would never have to activate a new card what happens when your CableCARD acts up or quits working? Say goodbye to your TiVo with lifetime on Charter.

Also it would shut TiVo out of the market unless TiVo makes a box just for Charter customers without CableCARDs which seems costly unless the chip is cheap enough to build into all boxes.


----------



## tatergator1 (Mar 27, 2008)

innocentfreak said:


> But if a 3rd party device rolls out as a current customer you wouldn't even be able to get another CableCARD if you wanted to add another TiVo. Also since the condition states they would never have to activate a new card what happens when your CableCARD acts up or quits working? Say goodbye to your TiVo with lifetime on Charter.
> 
> Also it would shut TiVo out of the market unless TiVo makes a box just for Charter customers without CableCARDs which seems costly unless the chip is cheap enough to build into all boxes.


As with most governmental laws/directives/rulings, the language is vague. They must support indefinitely, but are not required to provision new. What does new mean? I would take it as a customer with no previous CableCards on their accounts, not someone needing a re-pairing of an existing card, or replacement of an existing card. After all, how can you indefinitely support CableCard without continuing to provide support for the existing CableCards setups, whether that be re-pairing, replacing a defective card, etc.?

This is certainly a step in the wrong direction, but figuring out how detrimental this is requires a 'wait and see' attitude.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

I've read quite a few FCC rulings over the last 5 years. I'm perplexed and frustrated at the Media Bureau's decision. The ruling is incoherent, inconsistent, nonsensical. It is wrought with technical errors and misunderstandings. It includes vague rules that aren't well reasoned. Its the most flawed ridiculous ruling I've ever read from the FCC. For example, based on the vague language alone, Charter could strike an agreement with Cisco to sell a "retail" box on its web site and then essentially stop deploying new CableCARDs in its markets. It doesn't matter if Cisco sells just 1 box at retail.

Its possible that the CEA could file a "Petition for Reconsideration" although the FCC has some fairly stringent criteria.



> The Commission will consider a petition for reconsideration only when the petitioner shows either a material error in the Commission's original order, or raises additional facts, not known or existing at the time of the petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters.


The bottom-line is that the Chairman of the FCC is leaving in a few weeks and the Chairman tells the Media Bureau what to do. All sorts of scenarios are running through my head but its very possible that this waiver may be OBE at some point in the next few years and/or its overturned via FCC or other procedures. I'm completely frustrated that my tax dollars fund this sort of nonsense.

Dave Zatz chimed in on the ruling here -> http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2013-04/tivo-hopes-fcc-will-allow-santa-to-deliver-new-dvrs/



> So while the FCC recently bungled Charter's CableCARD waiver request, they have an opportunity to let TiVo get busy on their next generation Premiere DVR hardware.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

I really think this is going to something to follow. I wonder if it is even worth sending questions about it to the FCC before the final wording is officially posted. 

Does the company even have to be a third party? Could Charter not just sell the new DVRs and hardware they will have built with the chip? They could just mark it for some crazy price that will never sell. 

I also don't see how any CE company would want to make a device just for Charter's footprint. Unless the chip costs pennies where they can just slap it in every device and not have a real effect on the bottom line.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Tivo and CEA challenge FCC waiver:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/493622-TiVo_Asks_Bureau_to_Rethink_Charter_Waiver.php

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/493602-CEA_Challenges_Charter_s_FCC_Set_Top_Waiver.php

The CEA says in particular that this is an illegal action that exceeds the FCC's authority.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Good to see this challenged. Actual filings are here:

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=97-80
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017441711
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017441521


----------

