The FCC has issued a notice which is directed at allowing third party cable converters. Well folks it is about time. It was mandated by the 1996 Telecom Act and yet the FCC had done nothing in 13 years. It took them over 100 years for the telephone to move from a black box to what we have today.
The problem is simple, historically for a century it was illegal to connect anything to the telephone network. You had to take whatever the boy from Bell gave you and then you "leased" it for life. In real dollars you paid every month their full cost of the device, the phone, but you did that all your life. A license to steal. Now the CATV companies, yes it include Comcast, the new devil in the play, charge you what is in my opinion an extortionary amount per month for a box which you should have integrated into your TV set or better as a card on your PC, and you can buy it at any discount web seller. But no, even though the law required the FCC to make this so!
But salvation may be near with the notice. It may take ten years but at least it appears to be happening.
The FCC notice is prefaced by saying:
"In this Public Notice, we seek comment on how the Commission can encourage innovation in the market for video devices that will assist the Commission’s development of a National Broadband Plan pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), and serve the goals of Section 629 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Internet video has proven to be tremendously popular. In March 2009, viewers streamed nearly ten billion videos and averaged three hours watching video on the Internet. Subscription video services, including traditional cable services provided by many companies, video services offered by companies traditionally considered telephone companies, and Internet-based subscription services, use or plan to use Internet Protocol (“IP”) to deliver their video content. As the popularity of IP delivery of video continues to increase, we believe that new applications will emerge, Internet use will increase, consumers will have more viewing options, and more viewers will want to access Internet content on their televisions.
In addition to Section 629’s statutory mandate that the Commission adopt regulations to assure a competitive market for navigation devices, we believe that video devices are an important part of developing a National Broadband Plan. Although 76 percent of U.S. households have personal computers, 99 percent have television sets. The convergence of the television and content delivered by IP makes this a critical time to promote innovation in set-top devices that could support the Commission’s effort to drive broadband adoption and utilization. Accordingly, the Commission wishes to consider taking an active role in formulating a solution that will spur the development of a retail market for nationally portable video devices that will work across all delivery platforms, including MVPD platforms and broadband-based video platforms. We seek comments on the following specific issues to help us better understand these issues as we develop a National Broadband Plan."
Let me take the reader back 20 years to what I wrote then about the telephone business. As I had written in those days of telephone, namely in 1990:
""Consider what was written by a Bell System polemicist in 1977 at the 100th anniversary of the Bell System at MIT. The author was John R. Pierce, Executive Director at Bell Labs, who stated:
" Why shouldn't anyone connect any old thing to the telephone network? Careless interconnection can have several bothersome consequences Accidental connection of electric power to telephone lines can certainly startle and might conceivable injure and kill telephone maintenance men and can wreak havoc with telephone equipment Milder problems include electrically imbalanced telephone lines and dialing wrong and false numbers, which ties up telephone equipment. An acute Soviet observer remarked: "In the United States, man is exploited by man. With us it is just the other way around." Exploitation is a -universal feature of society, but universals have their particulars. The exploitation of the telephone service and companies is little different from the exploitation of the mineral resources, gullible investors,
or slaves." (deSola Pool Ed, Pierce, pp 192-194).
This may equally be applied to the position of may in the LEC and IEC areas towards the use of INet voice and specifically the software. The readers should note that this was written nine years after the Carterfone decision and five years before the announced divestiture. Pierce had a world view of an unsegmentable telephone network. This paper has the view of a highly segmentable communications system. The world view of the architecture has taken us from "slavery" of Pierce to the freedom of the distributed computer networks of today. Kuhn has described technologists as Pierce as the "Old Guard", defenders of the status quo. They defend the old paradigms and are generally in controlling positions for long periods of time.
The Computer Scientists view has been epitomized in the quote, "Every Packet is an Adventure". This is said with glee, in that each data packet is set out across the network and it is through the best of hacking that the Computer Scientist saves the packet from the perils of Scylla and Charybdis. The third view is that of the user, who is interested in developing an interconnect capability that meets the needs and minimizes cost. This is minimization of both obsolescence and cost strategy."
I continued:
"The other problem of the RBOC and LEC mentality is the abborhence to alien attachments. The were also called alien interfaces. Interfaces were originally called "Alien Attachments". In Kahn (II p. 140-145,) he discusses the history of the interface leading up to the Carterfone decision. The most significant position in CPE control was the Hush-A-Phone debate from 1921 to 1946. The Bell System at that time took total and full control over the quality of the delivery of the service of voice. The Hush-A-Phone company provided a mechanical cup device that could be placed over the mouthpiece of the telephone to assist in making the conversation more private. AT&T took the position that it interfered with the network and the quality of service and battled this for 25 years. Such is not the case today."
Now the same applies for CATV providers. The FCC poses the following questions.
A. What technological and market-based limitations keep retail video devices from accessing all forms of video content that consumers want to watch?
The answer is simple, the CATV guys have what is in my opinion an inappropriate monopoly, a tying arrangement, read Sherman and Clayton! With Comcast owning NBC one wonders what politician would dare threaten that!
B. Would a retail market for network agnostic video devices spur broadband use and adoption and achieve Section 629’s goal of a competitive navigation device market for all MVPDs?
The answer is also simple, apply Carterfone to cable. Simple, precedent exists. Make the "boxes" open source. That would be a step in breaking the monopoly!
C. Can the home broadband service model be adapted to allow video networks to connect and interact with home video network devices such as televisions, DVRs, and Home Theater PCs via a multimedia home networking standard?
Yes, anything can be done but now with the cable guys. Just look at wireless, there is competition, albeit an oligopoly, yet the iPhone would never have come from a monopoly. The answer is breaking the monopoly of the cable companies.
D. What obstacles stand in the way of video convergence?
Hopefully this is a rhetoric question. The FCC has the answer in front of their face! Comcast and the other members of the cartel!
For the Record, Section 629 of the Act states:
SEC. 629. COMPETITIVE AVAILABILITY OF NAVIGATION DEVICES.
(a) COMMERCIAL CONSUMER AVAILABILITY OF EQUIPMENT USED TO ACCESS SERVICES PROVIDED BY MULTICHANNEL VIDEO PROGRAMMING DISTRIBUTORS-
The Commission shall, in consultation with appropriate industry standard-setting organizations, adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability, to consumers of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor. Such regulations shall not prohibit any multichannel video programming distributor from also offering converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, to consumers, if the system operator s charges to consumers for such devices and equipment are separately stated and not subsidized by charges for any such service.
(b) PROTECTION OF SYSTEM SECURITY- The Commission shall not prescribe regulations under subsection (a) which would jeopardize security of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, or impede the legal rights of a provider of such services to prevent theft of service.
(c) WAIVER- The Commission shall waive a regulation adopted under subsection
(a) for a limited time upon an appropriate showing by a provider of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, or an equipment provider, that such waiver is necessary to assist the development or introduction of a new or improved multichannel video programming or other service offered over multichannel video programming systems, technology, or products. Upon an appropriate showing, the Commission shall grant any such waiver request within 90 days of any application filed under this subsection, and such waiver shall be effective for all service providers and products in that category and for all providers of services and products.
(d) AVOIDANCE OF REDUNDANT REGULATIONS-
(1) COMMERCIAL AVAILABILITY DETERMINATIONS- Determinations made or regulations prescribed by the Commission with respect to commercial availability to consumers of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, before the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 shall fulfill the requirements of this section
Thus it does seem clear that the FCC has the express authority. The pending acquisition of NBC's content creates a clear and present danger to any form of compliance and any ability for competition to exist in the content business. Why, I wonder, does not Assistant Attorney General Varney use the power of her Antitrust Division to see that this is not allowed?
The problem is simple, historically for a century it was illegal to connect anything to the telephone network. You had to take whatever the boy from Bell gave you and then you "leased" it for life. In real dollars you paid every month their full cost of the device, the phone, but you did that all your life. A license to steal. Now the CATV companies, yes it include Comcast, the new devil in the play, charge you what is in my opinion an extortionary amount per month for a box which you should have integrated into your TV set or better as a card on your PC, and you can buy it at any discount web seller. But no, even though the law required the FCC to make this so!
But salvation may be near with the notice. It may take ten years but at least it appears to be happening.
The FCC notice is prefaced by saying:
"In this Public Notice, we seek comment on how the Commission can encourage innovation in the market for video devices that will assist the Commission’s development of a National Broadband Plan pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), and serve the goals of Section 629 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Internet video has proven to be tremendously popular. In March 2009, viewers streamed nearly ten billion videos and averaged three hours watching video on the Internet. Subscription video services, including traditional cable services provided by many companies, video services offered by companies traditionally considered telephone companies, and Internet-based subscription services, use or plan to use Internet Protocol (“IP”) to deliver their video content. As the popularity of IP delivery of video continues to increase, we believe that new applications will emerge, Internet use will increase, consumers will have more viewing options, and more viewers will want to access Internet content on their televisions.
In addition to Section 629’s statutory mandate that the Commission adopt regulations to assure a competitive market for navigation devices, we believe that video devices are an important part of developing a National Broadband Plan. Although 76 percent of U.S. households have personal computers, 99 percent have television sets. The convergence of the television and content delivered by IP makes this a critical time to promote innovation in set-top devices that could support the Commission’s effort to drive broadband adoption and utilization. Accordingly, the Commission wishes to consider taking an active role in formulating a solution that will spur the development of a retail market for nationally portable video devices that will work across all delivery platforms, including MVPD platforms and broadband-based video platforms. We seek comments on the following specific issues to help us better understand these issues as we develop a National Broadband Plan."
Let me take the reader back 20 years to what I wrote then about the telephone business. As I had written in those days of telephone, namely in 1990:
""Consider what was written by a Bell System polemicist in 1977 at the 100th anniversary of the Bell System at MIT. The author was John R. Pierce, Executive Director at Bell Labs, who stated:
" Why shouldn't anyone connect any old thing to the telephone network? Careless interconnection can have several bothersome consequences Accidental connection of electric power to telephone lines can certainly startle and might conceivable injure and kill telephone maintenance men and can wreak havoc with telephone equipment Milder problems include electrically imbalanced telephone lines and dialing wrong and false numbers, which ties up telephone equipment. An acute Soviet observer remarked: "In the United States, man is exploited by man. With us it is just the other way around." Exploitation is a -universal feature of society, but universals have their particulars. The exploitation of the telephone service and companies is little different from the exploitation of the mineral resources, gullible investors,
or slaves." (deSola Pool Ed, Pierce, pp 192-194).
This may equally be applied to the position of may in the LEC and IEC areas towards the use of INet voice and specifically the software. The readers should note that this was written nine years after the Carterfone decision and five years before the announced divestiture. Pierce had a world view of an unsegmentable telephone network. This paper has the view of a highly segmentable communications system. The world view of the architecture has taken us from "slavery" of Pierce to the freedom of the distributed computer networks of today. Kuhn has described technologists as Pierce as the "Old Guard", defenders of the status quo. They defend the old paradigms and are generally in controlling positions for long periods of time.
The Computer Scientists view has been epitomized in the quote, "Every Packet is an Adventure". This is said with glee, in that each data packet is set out across the network and it is through the best of hacking that the Computer Scientist saves the packet from the perils of Scylla and Charybdis. The third view is that of the user, who is interested in developing an interconnect capability that meets the needs and minimizes cost. This is minimization of both obsolescence and cost strategy."
I continued:
"The other problem of the RBOC and LEC mentality is the abborhence to alien attachments. The were also called alien interfaces. Interfaces were originally called "Alien Attachments". In Kahn (II p. 140-145,) he discusses the history of the interface leading up to the Carterfone decision. The most significant position in CPE control was the Hush-A-Phone debate from 1921 to 1946. The Bell System at that time took total and full control over the quality of the delivery of the service of voice. The Hush-A-Phone company provided a mechanical cup device that could be placed over the mouthpiece of the telephone to assist in making the conversation more private. AT&T took the position that it interfered with the network and the quality of service and battled this for 25 years. Such is not the case today."
Now the same applies for CATV providers. The FCC poses the following questions.
A. What technological and market-based limitations keep retail video devices from accessing all forms of video content that consumers want to watch?
The answer is simple, the CATV guys have what is in my opinion an inappropriate monopoly, a tying arrangement, read Sherman and Clayton! With Comcast owning NBC one wonders what politician would dare threaten that!
B. Would a retail market for network agnostic video devices spur broadband use and adoption and achieve Section 629’s goal of a competitive navigation device market for all MVPDs?
The answer is also simple, apply Carterfone to cable. Simple, precedent exists. Make the "boxes" open source. That would be a step in breaking the monopoly!
C. Can the home broadband service model be adapted to allow video networks to connect and interact with home video network devices such as televisions, DVRs, and Home Theater PCs via a multimedia home networking standard?
Yes, anything can be done but now with the cable guys. Just look at wireless, there is competition, albeit an oligopoly, yet the iPhone would never have come from a monopoly. The answer is breaking the monopoly of the cable companies.
D. What obstacles stand in the way of video convergence?
Hopefully this is a rhetoric question. The FCC has the answer in front of their face! Comcast and the other members of the cartel!
For the Record, Section 629 of the Act states:
SEC. 629. COMPETITIVE AVAILABILITY OF NAVIGATION DEVICES.
(a) COMMERCIAL CONSUMER AVAILABILITY OF EQUIPMENT USED TO ACCESS SERVICES PROVIDED BY MULTICHANNEL VIDEO PROGRAMMING DISTRIBUTORS-
The Commission shall, in consultation with appropriate industry standard-setting organizations, adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability, to consumers of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor. Such regulations shall not prohibit any multichannel video programming distributor from also offering converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, to consumers, if the system operator s charges to consumers for such devices and equipment are separately stated and not subsidized by charges for any such service.
(b) PROTECTION OF SYSTEM SECURITY- The Commission shall not prescribe regulations under subsection (a) which would jeopardize security of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, or impede the legal rights of a provider of such services to prevent theft of service.
(c) WAIVER- The Commission shall waive a regulation adopted under subsection
(a) for a limited time upon an appropriate showing by a provider of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, or an equipment provider, that such waiver is necessary to assist the development or introduction of a new or improved multichannel video programming or other service offered over multichannel video programming systems, technology, or products. Upon an appropriate showing, the Commission shall grant any such waiver request within 90 days of any application filed under this subsection, and such waiver shall be effective for all service providers and products in that category and for all providers of services and products.
(d) AVOIDANCE OF REDUNDANT REGULATIONS-
(1) COMMERCIAL AVAILABILITY DETERMINATIONS- Determinations made or regulations prescribed by the Commission with respect to commercial availability to consumers of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, before the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 shall fulfill the requirements of this section
Thus it does seem clear that the FCC has the express authority. The pending acquisition of NBC's content creates a clear and present danger to any form of compliance and any ability for competition to exist in the content business. Why, I wonder, does not Assistant Attorney General Varney use the power of her Antitrust Division to see that this is not allowed?
Posts
