Innovation may move at the speed of light, but the agency charged with overseeing much of that innovation, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), simply does not.

That hasn’t changed since 1998 when I was chief of its Cable Services Bureau charged with drafting the first cable set-top box order. At the time, the FCC voted to “unlock the box” by requiring companies to separate the security feature that protects encrypted, copyrighted content from the box itself. The hope was that separating security and the box would spur lots of different companies to build boxes consumers could buy from Circuit City, Radio Shack or Crazy Eddie.

Here’s the problem: The FCC policy never really took with consumers.  Only a few thousand cable customers ever bought a box with the FCC's fix. Finally, in 2015, Congress got rid of the integration ban. Over the years there were various failed attempts at a better solution to making the box commercially available, but the box ceased to be a high priority on the FCC’s agenda.

Now, in an inexplicable bout of déjà vu, a lame-duck FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, is making another run at creating a market for set-top boxes through a catchy sales pitch, “Expanding Consumers’ Video, Navigation Choices—Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices.”  The cable industry and Hollywood say this FCC proceeding is a giveaway to Silicon Valley. It requires programmers to allow behemoths like Google access to their proprietary content that can be streamlined, repackaged, and wrapped around new packages of advertising.

Breaking with the tradition of not commenting on pending FCC matters, President Obama made a bold televised announcement on April 15 declaring the unlocking of the box one of his core competitive priorities. The White House boldly claims the proposal now pending before the FCC “will promote innovation and lead to positive results for consumers” such as lower costs. Unfortunately, the FCC and this administration have missed an important development: innovation has already evolved beyond anything the FCC could mandate.

I, for one, would prefer big pharma as a core competitive priority because my Advair prescription costs substantially more than a monthly set-top box fee -- and that’s not something I can cut.

Internet-edge providers such as Netflix, Hulu, Roku, Apple TV and others have become disrupters in the video marketplace. Cable subscribers are cutting or shaving the cord in droves. The set-top box is no longer the gatekeeper of video in the home. The future of TV will be tablets, smartphones, smart TVs and other devices that today are unimaginable. In fact, Comcast just announced a deal with Roku where it will offer InfinityX video streaming through Roku devices without a box.

So what does the FCC’s rulemaking actually do for consumers? In the near term; nothing-In the long term, probably nothing good. When the dust settles, the government has no ability to forcibly lower the cost of the box.

A close look at the president’s pledge reveals neither the White House nor the FCC offers any real proof that anyone other than the Googles of the world will benefit from new rules. The FCC’s rules are at risk from a lengthy court challenge, so consumers shouldn’t rush to Best Buy, HH Gregg or Target stores anytime soon to purchase streaming devices enabled by new FCC rules.

Furthermore, the box has a hidden price. The president’s intrusion into this regulatory matter threatens public confidence in the FCC, which Congress established as an independent expert regulatory agency. Clearly, just as every citizen has the right to participate in public proceedings, so, too, does the president. But he is no ordinary citizen. Highly charged public comments by him may unduly influence the FCC’s rulemaking process, thereby subjecting the agency to charges of bias. This is especially true, given this administration's close ties to the main beneficiary of the order -- Google

By highlighting this issue in an election year as a component of his core competition agenda, Obama has politicized it. Scoring political points through a pending regulatory matter weakens the FCC’s stature as an independent expert agency.  It also places FCC commissioners, who are appointed by the president, in a precarious position.

The three Democrats on the commission who hold the majority must decide whether to obey the White House or exercise their independent judgment and expertise that their oath of office requires. If their opinion is not in accord with the president’s, do they disobey him and risk jeopardizing their careers or do they obey and violate their oath? This is a quintessential Hobson’s choice that a commissioner should not have to make. The damage to the agency’s reputation and resulting loss of consumer trust is too high a price to pay for a set-top box.

Deborah Lathen, former senior executive at the FCC, is an independent telecommunications consultant, a member of the District of Columbia Board of Ethics and Government Accountability and a former non-executive director of BT (British Telecom).

The Walking Dead producer Gale Anne Hurd clearly does not like what she has been hearing out of the FCC recently on set-top box reforms.

Hurd took to the op-ed pages of USA Today Tuesday to slam the proposal by Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler to open up set-top box data and program streams to third-party navigation device makers and app developers.

READ MORE of MCN's coverage of FCC chairman Tom Wheeler's plan to unlock set-tops. 

Wheeler has said the proposal does not threaten copyright protection of the economic model of programmers, but Hurd seems thoroughly unconvinced.

"If the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approves Chairman Tom Wheeler’s regulatory proposal to 'open' set-top boxes, it will make piracy as easy and dangerous in the living room as it is on laptop and mobile devices," Hurd wrote. "Imagine Madison Square Garden being forced to open its doors to allow street vendors to sell fake and knock-off New York Knicks merchandise alongside the legitimate items in the stadium stores. Think of the advantages the street vendors would enjoy by not paying to license the goods they were selling."

Hurd left no doubt she has a very personal reason for her anti-piracy passion. "The season five premiere of my show...was illegally downloaded by roughly 1.27 million unique IP addresses worldwide within 24 hours of its debut," she said. AMC's The Walking Deadtrails only HBO's Game of Thrones among the most-pirated shows.

Cable operators and program producers have been pushing back hard on the proposal, saying the marketplace is already providing navigation alternatives, The National Cable & Telecommunications Association and Motion Picture Association of America are getting together this week to demo those alternatives for the press in an effort to put an exclamation point on the issue, though NCTA Chairman Michael Powell has not been shy about outlining the reasons he thinks the FCC is way off base and the other options available instead.

And clearly neither is Hurd. "I'm afraid that all of us who create, market and broadcast legitimate content will be like the zombies on my show: the walking dead....Don’t get me wrong. I love zombies. But the AllVid proposal is an idea that should never have been brought back from the dead."

"AllVid" is a reference to an earlier FCC effort to wed traditional and online video in a single gateway device.

Cable operators say that the FCC's latest navigation-device and set-top-box unlocking proposal is an exhumation of that, while Wheeler says it is not. Hurd says they are "unsettlingly similar" and would be similarly "disastrous."

The FCC is currently collecting stakeholder comment and even if it approves the proposal, with or without modifications, it would take a couple of years to take effect.

For most Americans, television is in a new “golden age.”

We have more diverse choices — and a richer menu of sports, news, education and entertainment available than ever. There’s more direct streaming from the likes of HBO and Netflix, more services like Apple TV and Amazon Fire, and more innovative devices from Roku boxes to wall-size smart TVs with cross-platform search.

We are in the midst of a revolution — one that is allowing television and video to serve the multicultural world that is the America we celebrate. And it has birthed new and diverse voices like my network, Crossings TV, which offers hyper-local programming in six different languages in markets throughout the United States, serving communities that are too often shut out or overlooked.

Yet worrisome new federal regulations proposed by Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler, with the support of large technology companies such as Google, have thrown a dark cloud over this revolution — one that could deprive many communities of the tailored, in-language program options we have worked so hard to provide.

Big Tech ‘Poachers’

Under the FCC’s proposed new rules (known commonly as “AllVid” after an earlier industry lobbying eff ort the Obama administration rejected in 2010), big technology companies such as Google would be given the right to poach the program license deals we negotiate with pay TV providers like DirecTV or Time Warner Cable without being bound to the underlying license terms that help fund our networks and ensure they get enough exposure to thrive.

The FCC chairman says the rule is intended to create competition for set-top box devices. He argues that exempting these companies from the obligation to negotiate for rights will enable them to focus on developing new boxes to repackage your existing programming and place it alongside the more underfunded Internet video in a single “cross -platform” search.

It’s an odd argument on behalf of competition — asking the federal government to subsidize the most wealthy companies so that they can bring more search and advertising services into our living rooms and require yet another in-home box.

Leaving aside that the rationale for this giveaway to Big Tech is totally undermined by the fact that smart TVs and other home gateways already provide cross-platform search, there is an even more compelling reason to oppose the AllVid mandate: It will likely bring us less diversity, not more, in television’s golden age.

Today, small and niche networks like mine can negotiate for channel placement they think will help them be seen by their target audience and can cross-promote with other networks to gain exposure from potential fans.

Crossings TV has grown because it has been able to create meaningful local programming in partnership with locally based multichannel distributors — builders of infrastructure and creators of jobs who are physically on the ground in the communities we serve.

But the Wheeler “AllVid” rule directly attacks that crucial system and allows tech firms to disregard negotiated terms such as channel placement, digital rights and much else.

At the Box’s Mercy

Further, the cross-search function leaves our channels all at the mercy of the new box’s often-mysterious algorithms — notorious for burying disfavored and smaller companies in its ash heap. The dedicated viewers who value networks like Crossings TV have no currency with Google, its fellow Silicon Valley technology inhabitants or profit-maximizing cross-platform search algorithms. Certainly many have observed that the Google workforce looks nothing like the diverse communities it purports to serve. For programmers like Crossings, these giant new boxes could mean a one way ticket to the back of the bus.

While working to create an African-American focused search browser through Blackbirdhome.com, I saw this problem up close when the Google search algorithm consistently buried African-American-generated content on the lowest rung of search results. Extrapolating that experience to a world of television that is subservient to a Google universal search master box promises a continued outlier existence for African- Americans and Asians, as well as other minorities.

AllVid will further strip-mine our value and harm viewers by serving up new banner ads (for which creators will get no compensation), ignoring privacy protections for your personal television viewing habits, and driving up bills with the massive re-engineering needed to accommodate these privileged devices.

The FCC should step back. Promoting competition is a goal we all share, but the government putting a thumb on the scale in favor of technology giants so that they can sell more ads, track our viewing habits and bury diversity programming — all in the name of competition that already exists — hardly seems to be part of the progressive legacy this FCC should leave.

Frank Washington is the CEO of Crossings TV, an award-winning, small, independent provider of Asian-language programming, information and entertainment. He conceived of the Minority Ownership Tax Certificate while a consultant in President Jimmy Carter’s administration and has served as the legal assistant to former FCC chairman Charles Ferris.

Get complete coverage of the FCC's set-top proposal.

Evolution Digital, a supplier that works with a wide range of independent MSOs, said it looks forward to hearing more following the FCC’s vote to approve chairman Tom Wheeler's proposal for "unlocking" the cable set top, but that the company still has reservations about the potential economic impact it could have on tier 2 and tier 3 MVPDs.

“Evolution Digital looks forward to Chairman Wheeler’s presentation tomorrow regarding the FCC’s set top box proposal,” Brent Smith, president and CTO of Evolution Digital, said in a statement. “ However, the information that we have to date from Chairman Wheeler gives us pause, due to the implications to both small cable providers and their customers if this proposal applies to all MVPDs.”

Though Wheeler has said the proposal does not employ the “AllVid” concept, which would involve the use of a separate device, Evolution sees two options for smaller cable operators to comply with the rules. They would need to either:

1.Completely simulcast their current linear cable service in IP, in order to support a common interface for third party devices.

2. Add an additional device in the home (CPE) to enable the conversion of their proprietary QAM video content, into a “common” IP video stream that could interface with a third party device. 

Either option, Evolution Digital argued, would “incur massive costs for Tier 2 and Tier 3 cable operators” and result in price hikes – things that would run counter to the aims of the initiative.

Smaller MVPDs, the company noted, are looking to migrate gracefully to IP video, but the urgency of the rules would be “too great of a burden for small cable operators,” forcing them to rapidly “switch to all-IP in a timeline that is unfeasible with current resources and technological capabilities.”

“It is our hope that the FCC and Chairman Wheeler are exploring these issues with great concern,” said Smith, who was a member of the FCC-appointed  Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee (DSTAC) formed last year.

WASHINGTON — “Box” is probably the wrong fighting term to use about the current set-top fracas involving the Federal Communications Commission, multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) and Silicon Valley. It’s more like a bare-knuckles cage match over the future of access to video.

On one side are the MVPDs, who argue the marketplace is already opening up access to video programming without the FCC forcing providers to disaggregate their programming for reassembly by others.

The FCC — pressed by Silicon Valley giant Google, TV-maker Vizio, digital video recorder maker TiVo and others — stands on the other side, saying it’s time to break the MVPDs’ leased lockbox on programming and prices.

What’s at stake is nothing less than the future of television and how its viewers will consume it — and who can access the reams of valuable data MVPDs now use to sell to advertisers. The question of who can access that information also poses huge privacy and security issues for TV watchers.

In December, the Consumer Choice Video Coalition (CVCC) — backed by Silicon Valley giants including Google, TiVo, Vizio, Public Knowledge, the Writers Guild of America, competitive telecom carrier trade group INCOMPAS (formerly COMPTEL) and others — demonstrated a new set-top box for FCC staffers, hoping to convince the agency to crack open leased cable boxes for competing over-the-top providers. Of the 21 coalition members present, one-third were from Google.

Fast-forward to two weeks ago, and Google — which just topped Apple as the world’s most valuable company, at half a trillion dollars in valuation — hosted a similar demonstration of the coalition’s “competitive Navigation device solution” for Capitol Hill staffers. The proposal’s mere existence is a game-changer for third-party devices, and a potential huge victory at the FCC that cable operators and studios say would hurt their businesses, as well as consumers.

The FCC has proposed to require cable operators to make their programming available to third parties in a way that cable operators say would force them to re-engineer their networks and strip away copyright and consumer protections.

Google and others in the coalition said the proposal creates a “virtual headend” so that an MVPD’s signal can be viewed along with over-the-top offerings on a competitive device. That device could be a box, phone, tablet, smart TV, dongle or even a leased cable box.

The idea is that the device allows access not only to the MVPDs’ programming, but to content from the Internet, including Netflix, Amazon Instant Video and YouTube.

More worrisome for cable operators, it could allow these third parties access to the most precious of all screen space: the first thing viewers see when they turn on the TV. Might it be an ad from Google?

Cable operators, movie studios and others have formed the Future of Television Coalition to fight the proposal. It’s not that they don’t want their content side by side with OTT, they said (and that’s already happening in the marketplace without FCC intervention). Rather, they see the FCC’s move as an unnecessary thumb on the scale for the Googles and TiVos of the world.

“It disaggregates the provider of the service from their customer, which no business is really going to like,” one coalition source said. “And it gives third parties a way to come in and get revenue out of the ecosystem that devalues the content.”

Coalition co-chairman Alfred Liggins, the president and CEO of cable network TV One, said, “The ‘AllVid’ proposal is a brazen money grab by Big Tech companies that would do severe damage to the programming ecosystem, and in particular, niche and minority-focused networks.”

Cable operators argue that the proposal is essentially a revival of the AllVid proposal the FCC offered up in 2010. Wheeler and FCC officials, though, say the new plan is far from that.

Wheeler has pushed the plan with tough talk about the skyrocketing price of set-tops and the lack of competition. He went so far as to use a Public Knowledge/Consumer Federation of America chart at a press conference to illustrate why it’s necessary to “unlock” the box for edge providers and consumer groups. (Gigi Sohn, a top adviser to Wheeler, is the co-founder of Public Knowledge.)

At press time, cable operators and other members of the Future of Television Coalition hadn’t seen Wheeler’s notice of proposed rulemaking, so all they had to go on in formulating reasons why the FCC was on the wrong track were the painful (for them) memories of AllVid and the CVCC proposal.

Multichannel News talked to senior FCC officials who have seen the NPRM to get their responses to the cable operators’ key concerns — and they have a ton of them.

So, in one corner, from an NCTA filing with guidance from Future of TV Coalition sources, are the perceived blows the chairman’s proposal would inflict on a video-access marketplace if it unfolds along the lines of the proposal put forth by Google et al. In the other, top FCC officials, speaking not for attribution, weigh in with their responses.

Would this turn the “opening screen” — what viewers see when they turn on their TV sets — over to a third party?

MVPDs: The first screen could be “Welcome to Google” only, with ads down the side. How would a Cox Communications or Comcast subscriber get directly to their channel lineups (on the same channels) on that opening screen as well?

FCC: “While we cannot predict the design or interface that device makers and software developers may come up with, they will be required to pass through all of the content the consumer is entitled to receive. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asks how that should be defined,” an FCC source told Multichannel News. “This proposal is intended to introduce competition in devices and apps available to consumers. If a consumer does not like the interface or user experience available on one offering, they could look for an alternative offered by a competitor.” In other words, what that opening screen will show is yet to be determined.

What happens to programming agreements?

MVPDs: Retail devices would have access to parts of the MVPD service from which they could create their own service offerings, without responsibility or compensation to programmers or MVPDs.

FCC: “The CableCard works the same way,” an FCC source said. “It gives an independent vendor such as a TiVo access to the MVPDs’ programming and guide information. And none of these things have happened.

“And on the compensation issue: If you think about this logically, if I’m a Comcast subscriber, I’m paying Comcast whether I’m using their box or whether I use a TiVo box,” the agency source added. “Comcast is then passing that money on to the programmers, based on the fact that I count as one of their eyeballs. They are also able to sell advertising based on the fact that I count as one of their eyeballs. Nothing that our proposal would do would change any of that. They keep their subs; they keep their subs’s money. We’re just saying you should be able to get a box or view it with an app on any device you want without disrupting any agreement between the programmer and the MVPD.”

Under the CableCard regime, third parties are not required to display the guide in the same manner as MVPDs, but they are required to pass through a channel lineup, and that won’t change, the official said. “Any package that the consumer has paid for shall be passed through in full and displayed in full by the third party,” the FCC source said.

In addition to those channels being available in order, they can also be searched by category in a similar way as can be searched today. “If an MVPD can do that today and be in compliance with a third-party programming agreement, why wouldn’t a third party be able to do that?”

Would this proposal infringe on copyrights?

MVPDs: Device manufacturers would be allowed to infringe on programmers’ copyrights by displaying and copying protected works through manufacturers’ own services without permission or compensation.

FCC: “Nothing we are doing undoes any copyright protections that exist today.

“As part of our proposal, we would require that the copy-protection information be transmitted from the MVPD to the device or app, and that the device or app must honor that copy protection mandate from the programmer.” If the device doesn’t honor copy-protection rules, programmers would have the same redress as they do under copyright, the official pointed out, though that is not the FCC’s purview.

Would consumers lose modern features offered by the box, like Time Warner Cable’s “Start Over?”

MVPDs: Consumers would be denied access to many modern MVPD service features like voice search, starting a show in progress at the beginning and other interactive enhancements, which MVPDs rely on to ensure the quality of their user experience and to provide value to their customers and stay competitive.

FCC: If viewers want such enhancements, they can keep them. “We’re not telling anyone they have to give up their cable box. All we are saying is that, as a consumer, if you want to buy somebody else’s box, you should be able to. And who’s to say that new box won’t have those features or a different feature that consumers want?”

Wouldn’t the proposal require some sort of in-home adapter, not to mention added costs for consumers?

MVPDs: MVPDs must provide customers with a government-designed in-home, leased device in order to receive MVPD service on a retail device, raising equipment and energy costs for consumers. FCC: Officials said that sounded like AllVid, which they said was not the chairman’s proposal. “We are not designing a device. In fact, we are not even mandating a device. We are very pro-app, and software and competitive devices [in] whatever format these innovators want to develop in. We are just trying to encourage that. AllVid was two boxes. We were telling people we are going to design a box and you have to have two boxes to get your cable programming. But that’s not what we are doing here.

“In fact, we would love it if our proposal resulted in no boxes. The way of the future is not the box. Wouldn’t it be great if you could just hook up your MVPD service to your Smart TV and you could see everything?”

Would this complicate issues like privacy, and perhaps thwart emergency alerts?

MVPDs: Device manufacturers are not obligated to abide by Title VI consumer protection regulations such as, among others, privacy protections and emergency alert requirements.

FCC: “Our proposal specifically seeks comment on maintaining emergency alerting. The safety of the public is very important to the commission. Nothing that we do in our proposal to create a competitive marketplace will undermine emergency alerting.”

As to consumer-protection regulations, the official said that MVPDs do have different obligations under the Cable Act than device manufacturers. “Title VI applies to MVPDs only.” But the official said that those device manufacturers are already subject to some pretty strict privacy laws and regulations of their own, enforced by the Federal Trade Commission — citing a “ton” of consent decrees against app and device manufacturers and the fact they are subject to strict California laws on privacy, as well as strict European Union privacy regulations for any device or app sold in member countries.

Can this make it easier for hackers since there’s now a single point of attack?

MVPDs: Cable operators and other providers would have to use a common content encryption technology (DTCP-IP), creating a single point of attack for hackers. DTCP-IP also does not support today’s rapidly evolving video business models.

FCC: That is a reference to what CVCC is asking, said one official, and the chairman’s proposal “is not that.” He said the chairman’s proposal “recognizes there are a wide variety of methods for protecting content from theft and misuse, and TV providers ought to use multiple systems,” and so the proposal “does not prescribe any particular content-protection system” so those can evolve. But the proposal does recognize that third parties need access to those content protection systems, whatever they wind up being, so the proposal requires that a pay TV provider license at least one such system on reasonable terms. “There will be no government standard that we select, or even that we approve” and the FCC remains “tech-neutral” on hardware vs. software.

Doesn’t this force MVPDs to essentially give away their guide data?

MVPDs: MVPDs would be required to provide program-guide data, which they do not own, to retail devices, thereby exceeding their licenses with guide data suppliers.

FCC: The FCC will seek comment on the “exact level” of information that is needed to pass through from an MVPD to a third party in order to maintain all of the rights the consumer has paid for.

Could this focus on box-vs.-no box stifle innovation in next-generation technologies, not to mention the growing demand for apps?

MVPDs: Providers would have to support an expensive legacy technical solution, thereby interfering with plans to deploy next-generation systems and technologies (e.g., IP cable and IPv6).

Moreover, this would force cable operators and others to implement an inflexible, one-size-fits-all technology mandate that ignores the video marketplace transition to apps and creates a drag on innovation in the highly dynamic video-device marketplace.

FCC: “That, again, sounds like AllVid. This isn’t AllVid.

“It’s very clear by everything we have put out that we are very supportive of apps. We think apps are the way of the future and what we are proposing to do is tech-neutral. It does not mandate a box. If people want to develop a box and consumers are happy with boxes, they are welcome to them. But what we are trying to do here is let people innovate, whether they want to do boxes or something that is like the Amazon Fire stick or if they want to do an app. All options are open in the proposal.”

How would technology standards be decided for this new sharing arrangement?

MVPDs: The proposal relies on standards not yet invented or implemented and would take years to develop — by which time the “solution” will likely have become outdated.

FCC: On the one hand, the official said, cable operators have consistently said they don’t want the agency setting a standard and “now they aren’t happy with us wanting to let a standards body set the standards, a body we think they should be a part of. It is tough to have it both ways.

“We are requiring the standards be set by an open standards body with participation from MVPDs, CE manufacturers, app developers and generally following the executive guidance on open standards bodies. We don’t want to be in the middle of it. It is not a government-mandated standard.”

How does this proposal change what is already happening in the marketplace, with viewers accessing cable and over-the-top side-by-side without the FCC stepping in?

MVPDs: This is a solution in search of a problem.

FCC: “It is very true that some of the larger MVPDs make apps available to certain devices where they entered into contracts with those devices.

“The problem is, today if I open up, say, a Comcast app on my Smart TV, I can’t search what is available to me through my Comcast subscription versus what is available to me from Netflix. I have to go into each app, search inside that app, get out, go to the next screen if I want to go to Hulu after that.

“The nice thing about being able to let unaffiliated vendors develop apps for devices is that we anticipate functionality very similar to what TiVo does today, allowing consumers to search across all the sources of programming that they have access to because they pay for many of these things. It will be easier for consumers to find the programming they want at the price they want to pay for it.”

Click here for more FCC set-top box news.

In Comcast’s turn to blast the FCC’s proposal to create new rules aimed at spurring a retail market for set-top boxes, the MSO said that, if enacted, such rules threaten to “stifle TV innovation.”

The proposal, led by FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, “would require satellite and cable TV providers to disaggregate or separate their services so that a few companies could repackage them as their own without negotiation for content rights like everybody else in the market does today,” Mark Hess Comcast’s SVP, office of the CTO, wrote Thursday in this blog post.

Hess had a front seat on FCC-appointed technical advisory committee formed a year ago to pursue potential downloadable successors to the CableCARD, and came up with multiple paths – an apps-based model favored by the cable industry, and another AllVid-style approach that discusses the idea of a "virtual headend." 

Earlier today, Wheeler said assertions that the proposal is akin to an earlier proposed AllVid regime are incorrect, and that it would not create the need for a second box and did not affect MVPD programming deals or how operators tier, bundle or price video services.

Hess argued that Wheeler’s “proposal, like prior federal government technology mandates, would impose costs on consumers, adversely impact the creation of high-quality content, and chill innovation.  It also flies in the face of the rapid changes that are occurring in the marketplace and benefitting consumers.”

Hess also echoed the arguments already laid out by the cable industry, holding that the market for competitive video devices is proliferating without government meddling, citing the rise of OTT services from Netflix and Amazon, multichannel alternatives such as Sony’s PlayStation Vue and Dish Network’s Sling TV.

As proof of the impact of the current state of competition, Hess pointed to X1, Comcast’s next-gen, IP-capable video platform, noting that it supports apps for retail mobile devices.

“Given these exciting, pro-consumer marketplace developments, it is perplexing that the FCC is now considering a proposal that would impose new government technology mandates on satellite and cable TV providers with the purported goal of promoting device options for consumers,” he wrote.

Hess also argued that the FCC’s track record on tech mandates is “has been less than stellar,” citing examples such as the CableCARD, which failed to create a vibrant retail market for set-tops and cable-ready TVs, and a mandate for 1394 outputs in set-tops “even after it was clear that other outputs had won out in the marketplace.” The FCC scuttled 1394 "FireWire" interface requirements in cable HD set-tops in 2010, as long as the boxes provided alternative access to content over IP home networks.

Click here for more FCC set-top box news.

Even as the FCC was unveiling chairman Tom Wheeler's proposal to bring competition to the set-top market by "unlocking" cable boxes and making the information available to competitors who want to wed traditional and online video content (an AllVid-like proposal), the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, American Cable Association, Motion Picture Association of America, and a host of others were unveiling the Future of TV Coalition to beat the commission to the consumer video choice punch.

The coalition, co-chaired by Alfred Liggins of TV One and Nomi Bergman of Bright House, will celebrate and promote what its 47 members say is the already thriving innovation in video experience options to provide even more choices.

Look for it to be making that point loudly to the FCC as the commission collects comments on the chairman's proposal, which was premised on the assertion that the video access device market instead needed a competitive boost because choices were few and prices high, with consumers "chained to their set-top boxes because cable and satellite operators have locked up the market."

"The ‘AllVid’ proposal is a brazen money grab by Big Tech companies that would do severe damage to the programming ecosystem, and in particular, niche and minority-focused networks," said Liggins in a statement. "Everyone who cares about quality, diverse television should let the FCC know that AllVid is a harmful non-starter.”

As NCTA argued in comments warning the FCC off an AllVid approach, the coalition said Wednesday (Jan. 27) that such an approach would allow a handful of tech companies to "replace innovation with government regulation." It said that AllVid "would force programmers and TV providers to dismantle their shows and services for these companies to repackage, reuse, and exploit without negotiating for the rights like everybody else in the market does today. AllVid would not give viewers access to any new programming or content that isn’t already available in their homes and would not replace or lower their existing television bills."

FCC officials speaking on background say their proposal would not force the disaggregation of TV content, would respect existing MVPD contracts with programmers and their subs, and would not require anyone to get a competing device if they were satisfied with their current box.

But they also signaled that they think it is necessary to "unlock" the MVPD's hold on video access devices.

Other members of the new coalition include AT&T/DirecTV and DISH.

“We believe the future of TV is apps,” Apple CEO Tim Cook declared in September as he unveiled the latest, greatest Apple TV streaming device. It was largely viewed as a prescient utterance.

Based on the current state of the TV world, though, Cook might has well have been talking about the present. Programmers and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) are continuing to launch streaming apps at a rapid clip for smartphones, tablets, gaming consoles, smart TVs and streaming players.

It’s abundantly clear that the bulk of the pay TV ecosystem has taken on an apps-friendly approach, crafting strategies to help fight back against the small-but-growing cord-cutting trend while establishing a presence on increasingly popular connected consumer devices.

These programmers and MVPDs have realized they need to be where consumers are. In many cases, that’s no longer the old set-top box.

The shift toward an apps-centric paradigm also has huge regulatory ramifications. Cook’s comments and the ongoing deployment ramp fit snugly with the cable industry’s position as the Federal Communications Commission considers new video-security rules that would succeed the CableCard, a device that failed to create a vibrant market for cable-ready retail set-tops and TVs.

The FCC has yet to act on any new rules in this area, but it’s mulling its next move following a report from an agency-appointed group, the Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee. DSTAC arrived at divided recommendations — an apps-based approach that is generally endorsed by the cable industry, and an “AllVid”-style approach that favors the implementation of a “virtual headend” and a government-specified gateway device.

The cable industry believes the market is being driven by apps, and has been backing that up with stats and numbers. For instance, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association recently estimated that 66% of the 460 million Internet-protocol devices in the market now can stream each of the top 10 pay TV provider apps. In a blog item posted in September, CableLabs chief technology officer Ralph Brown noted that 96% of those retail IP devices can be served by apps from one or more MVPD app, and 67% of them can be served by an app from all of the top 10 U.S. pay TV providers.

When it comes to video apps, 2015 will be remembered “as a watershed moment for the industry,” HBO executive vice president of global distribution operations Bernadette Aulestia said.

Although the cable industry agrees on the apps-based approach, the way those strategies have been put into play has been far from uniform.

While Time Warner Cable, Charter Communications and other providers have developed apps for Roku players, Comcast has instead focused its apps on mobile devices. For their part, programmers have centered on iOS and Android tablets and smartphones, but vary in their support of TV-connected platforms. (For a representative rundown of programmer apps, see chart starting.)

But they all agree that use of their respective apps is on the upswing. “We are definitely seeing an increase in the usage” of the TWC TV app, now offered on eight platforms, Mike Angus, senior vice president and general manager of digital programming and content for Time Warner Cable, said.

That trend is gradually moving “mainstream,” as TWC and others remove some steps in the authentication process that used to be required for customers to obtain their credentials, Angus said.

And apps on TV-connected devices have given MSOs a path to distribution on retail platforms that can replicate most of the functions in a set-top box.

TWC is taking that idea to task in New York, where it is trialing a set of IPTV service tiers centered on the Roku platform. The trial, targeted to cord-cutters and video customers looking to avoid monthly set-top box fees, uses the TWC TV app to deliver live programming and VOD to Roku devices.

“You’ve got to be able to provide each of those customers with what they want or you’re potentially missing out on an important and new [customer] segment,” Angus said.

“It’s not one size fits all anymore.”

Comcast has been adding more utility (and unity) to its apps, which are used by customers in and out of the home. The Xfinity TV app for Comcast’s X1 platform, for instance, recently tacked on support for the MSO’s TV Everywhere VOD library.

That has incented customers to download the app as a primary video source, Comcast Cable senior director of TV Everywhere content and product strategy Vito Forlenza said. About one-third of Comcast’s customers are now using some form of TV Everywhere, via the MSO’s Web or mobile apps, or through an app operated by a programming partner, he noted.

“The most interesting thing is that users are growing, but hours per viewer are also growing,” he said, attributing that in part to an increase in the “stacking” of current TV seasons.

About 25% of programming hours viewed via TVE are live, Forlenza said, driven primarily by news and sports.

Comcast is also working to fill a gap in its TVE lineup by adding broadcast-TV stations to the mix.

“We think that will really have a big effect on increasing our reach and engagement and providing more value to our customers,” Forlenza said. Comcast is working with broadcasters to define the rules on access, he added.

Forlenza attributes some of TVE’s upward swing to the collaboration on guidelines, including iconography and language, developed in partnership with organizations such as the Cable & Telecommunications Asssociation for Marketing and the Open Authentication Technology Committee.

Programmers, and premium networks in particular, are also seeing increased traction with their respective apps.

Showtime said it has seen significant growth in TVE since launching its effort four years ago. Among the stats: Registered users rose 69% and app downloads nearly doubled from September 2014 to September 2015. “Program plays” — via the Showtime Anytime app and MVPD apps that provide Showtime content — increased 64% from August 2014 to August 2015.

Still, TVE remains an additional conduit, rather than a primary one. Showtime Anytime users are moving fluidly from the linear channel, the DVR, set-top VOD to the app, as just 6% of the network’s viewers watch Showtime content exclusively on the TVE app, Showtime executive vice president, research, program planning and scheduling Kim Lemon said.

HBO has seen similar usage patterns across HBO Go, its TV Everywhere offering, and HBO Now, its new standalone OTT subscription service, Aulestia said.

“For many years … consumer education was a big piece of what many of us spent a lot of time working on,” she said. “But once they [consumers] use it, they’re sold.”

And the apps-based approach has not cannibalized other parts of HBO’s business. For example, HBO Go, a mature product in TVE terms, has seen registrations jump 20% this year. “All boats have risen,” Aulestia said.

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX

Traditional set-top makers are also working on ways to stitch apps to the traditional TV offering. While TiVo has been doing this for years on its retail and MVPD-tailored digital video recorders, Arris is also blazing that path with Arris Market, a platform that enables its MSO partners to blend OTT with TV.

Heading into next year, Arris aims to “drive wild and wide adoption” of its approach as it introduces a new pricing model for Arris Market, vice president of product management Ron Miller said.

Arris has already integrated Netflix, Pandora, i-Velozity (an IP video-on-demand service now owned by Evolution Digital), Toon Goggles, Weather Network, Newsmax and thousands of Web clips (via a partnership with Wurl) to its platform. It’s in the midst of obtaining certification for YouTube. “Netflix, YouTube, Amazon and Hulu … those are the four constants in the discussion,” Miller said.

OTT providers are also eager to be integrated on set-top platforms. “It’s called the fight for Input 1 on the remote control,” Miller said.

For our list of programmer OTT apps, please click here.

Reiterating its view, the NCTA urged the FCC to reject calls to create new technology mandate aimed at bringing pay TV programming to retail devices, noting that the “apps revolution” has brought pay TV services to twice as many consumer video devices as there are set-top boxes currently in use.

The FCC Media Bureau is seeking comments on the final report that the Commission-appointed Downloadable Security Technical Advisory Committee (DSTAC) submitted August 28. Reply comments are due Nov. 9, 2015. The FCC has not announced plans to follow with a larger Notice of Inquiry or a full Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the matter.

The formation of the DSTAC in January followed the passing of the STELAR Act, legislation that will sunset the current set-top security integration ban in December 2015 and called on the FCC to take a look at a successor approach to the CableCARD that could spur the retail market for video navigation devices for not just cable operators, but other MVPDs.

The DSTAC report was far from unified, and included an apps-based approach favored by cable operators and another AllVid-style approach, favored by companies such as Google, that originally envisioned a government-specified gateway device uniting video from various sources.

The NCTA has labelled the latter concept as “pure vaporware,” while also complaining that it would “strip the programming out of the pay TV service a consumer purchases, mash up that service in any way the manufacturers wish, and brand it as their own service – with no responsibility to programmers or distributors to deliver the content as required by contract and programming licenses. “

“The “DSTAC’s Report underscores that there is no need for FCC technology mandates in a marketplace where consumers can access MVPD and OVD content on a wide and growing array of retail devices,” the NCTA said, noting that apps from pay TV providers have been downloaded over 56 million times for the iOS and Android platforms and are now available to more than 460 million video devices in the U.S., more than twice the number of set-top boxes currently in use.

CableLabs CTO Ralph Brown recently posted a blog that presents that tally in more detail.

Multichannel News will shed more light on the other filings and positions on the matter shortly. 

The FCC Media Bureau announced Monday that it is seeking public comments on the final report that the Commission-appointed Downloadable Security Technical Advisory Committee (DSTAC) submitted last Friday (August 28).

The FCC, which also posted the six-page report here, said comments are due Oct. 8, 2015, with reply comments due Nov. 9, 2015. Docket 15-64 has been setup for the process. The FCC has not announced plans to follow with a larger Notice of Inquiry or a full Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the matter.

“By this Public Notice, the Media Bureau seeks comment on the DSTAC’s report, including the four Working Group reports attached to the final report, and how it should inform the Commission’s obligations under Section 629 of the Communications Act,” the FCC Media Bureau noted.

The formation of the DSTAC in January followed the passing of the STELAR Act, legislation that will sunset the current set-top security integration ban in December 2015 and called on the FCC to take a look at a successor approach to the CableCARD that could spur the retail market for video navigation devices for not just cable operators, but other MVPDs.

The DSTAC report presents two security proposals -- one that relies on HTML-5 security APIs and associated encrypted media extensions  for distribution in the home and via the cloud, and a “virtual headend” approach whereby the network security and condition access is handled in the cloud with interfaces between the operator and the device using protection such as DTCP-IP.

The scope of DSTAC’s work also was not unified, as it spanned multiple  non-security and control plane components. A proposed app-based approach would retain the MVPD’s user interface as services are made available on IP-connected retail devices such as gaming consoles, tablets and PCs.  Another approach factors in competitive navigation/UIs that empower CE companies, such as TiVo, to create and implement their own guides.

The Consumer Video Choice Coalition -- a group whose membership includes CCIA, COMPTEL,  Public Knowledge;  Ceton, Google, Hauppauge, SiliconDust, TiVo and Vizio – applauded the DSTAC’s work and the  FCC’s decision to put out its call for public comment. The CVCC also wants the FCC to follow with policies that would lead to a vibrant market for set-tops and other video devices.

"The DSTAC process was productive, in that it showed that the disagreement between cable companies and others about the set-top box market is not about what technologies are possible, but what outcome the FCC should work for,” the group said, in a statement. “ The Consumer Video Choice Coalition believes that the FCC should adopt policies that are most likely to lead to a competitive set-top box marketplace, where consumers can choose from a variety of devices at different price points and with different feature sets, and no longer have to rent outdated devices from their TV provider.”

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association also was generally pleased with the DSTAC report, but was not wild about the potential return of an AllVid proposal that originally envisioned a government-specified gateway device uniting video from various sources.

"Regrettably, the report veers off course by including a controversial proposal to place a burdensome technology mandate on MVPDs known as AllVid," NCTA said in a statement released late last week. "This approach could jeopardize consumer protections including privacy, emergency alerts, parental controls, and inhibit innovation by allowing the government to dictate the way video content is delivered to consumers." 

The Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA) has introduced a consumer-facing brand that will be used to identify set-tops, gaming consoles, streaming devices and other retail CE products that adhere to a new set of technical guidelines that enable the support of subscription TV content from multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs).

In addition to supporting the full suite of pay-TV services of a participating MVPD via a protected IP-based home network, VidiPath will also provide them with a way to bridge their user interface and navigation systems to VidiPath-certified devices that are sold at retail. DLNA released the CVP-2 guidelines in March, succeeding CVP-1, a set of guidelines that allowed only for limited DVR content sharing between an MSO-supplied box and DLNA-certified equipment.

On Thursday, DLNA also launched the VidiPath Certification program, which will be used to certify products that are based on the CVP-2/VidiPath guidelines. DLNA said it will demonstrate VidiPath-based products at the IBC, which off Friday, Sept. 12 in Amsterdam.

Scott Lofgren, president of DLNA and chairman of the DLNA board, said the organization has already held several VidiPath plug-fests and implemented the test programs. Five independent certification vendors have set up testing labs in five locations around the globe. Certification fees vary, including $15,000 for a “Class 1 Base Device” that allows the company to submit an unlimited number of derivatives of an original certified product for testing for a full year. VidiPath software testing costs $1,000.

Lofgren said at least 15 companies are working on VidiPath-compatible products now and anticipates that some will make it through the certification process in time for the 2014 holiday buying season. Additionally, four service providers are looking to support VidiPath/CVP-2 in their services and media servers/gateway products.

Devices that pass the test will be capable of supporting the full pay-TV experience of participating MVPDs. “It’s all about more eyeballs on more content and more devices,” Lofgren said, noting that he sees rollouts ramping up first in the U.S. this year before pushing ahead with service providers based in  Europe and Asia.

DLNA’s membership group includes CableLabs, MVPDs such as Comcast, CableLabs, Time Warner Cable, Verizon Communications, and Cox Communications, as well as suppliers and chipmakers, including Arris, Sony, LG, Intel and Broadcom.

Earlier this year, Comcast declined to say when it would support the new DLNA guidelines, but did acknowledge that it planned to integrate them into set-tops and gateways that run its X1 platform and use the Reference Design Kit, a preintegrated software stack for IP-capable video devices.  

“As products complete the VidiPath Certification process and get introduced into the market, we will be able to provide our services to customers on a growing choice of compatible devices that they can choose based on their unique requirements and preferences,” said Ken Klaer, senior vice president, Comcast Cable, in a statement.

"We are excited that the VidiPath Certification program has now begun. It will facilitate the interoperability between cable operator supplied STBs and VidiPath Certified CE devices, added, Tom Lookabaugh, chief R&D officer, CableLabs.

Looking ahead, DLNA has already outlined capabilities that are on the VidiPath roadmap, including integration with second screens that would allow the user to control content and navigate menus via tablets and smartphones. DLNA is also working on a way for VidiPath to support cloud-sourced content.

The VidiPath/CVP-2 guidelines are pushing ahead as the AllVid Tech Company Alliance continues to urge the FCC to pursue a successor to the CableCARD that could be applied to all MVPDs, and not just cable operators. Led by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the cable industry has argued that the FCC should allow the marketplace to develop on its own without additional government mandates.

TiVo, once a burr in cable’s saddle when it came to next-gen video security, has been restored to an ally in the industry’s pursuit of a successor to the much-maligned CableCARD without further government intervention. But make no mistake -- the company wants the current CableCARD rules to remain until a next-gen solution is available for video devices sold at retail.

That much is apparent following this week’s revelation of a commercial agreement between TiVo and Comcast that will include the development of a new, non-CableCARD approach to video security that will enable retail-bought TiVo devices to gain access to the MSO’s full suite of video products, including linear TV and video-on-demand.

Under that same agreement, Comcast has also committed to continue providing and supporting CableCARDs in retail devices, a move that gives TiVo assurances that there won’t be a gap between the legacy and future way its devices will be able to obtain that content securely.

TiVo isn’t providing details on any similar discussions it has underway with other MVPDs (Charter Communications’ ongoing downloadable video security effort also has retail aspirations, for example), but the company believes that more direct cooperation between it and MVPDs now presents the smoothest path toward the post-CableCARD era.

“As evidenced by this agreement, our view is that commercial agreements are most likely to be the path going forward,” Jeff Klugman, TiVo’s executive vice president and general manager of products and revenue, said. “We’ve found that, as long as we have access to signal, however it comes, that’s really what’s important to supporting our business going forward. And not just for our business – for the business of other retail devices.”

That view, at least with respect on how things should progress with respect to next-gen approaches marks a bit of a change. TiVo, along with Best Buy, Intel, Google, Nagra, Radio Shack, and Sony, was an early member of the AllVid Tech Company Alliance, a group formed in 2011 that has been urging the FCC to move ahead on a new rule-making effort that would produce a successor to the CableCARD that could be applied not just to cable, but to all MVPDs. TiVo confirmed that it has withdrawn from that group and that it is working with operators on next-generation solutions. The company also reiterated that it believes the integration ban is important until a post-CableCARD solution is available for retail devices. The agreement with Comcast is a step toward that, but TiVo will want other operators to follow suit.

Meanwhile, the cable industry, including the National Cable & Telecommunications Commission, has asked the FCC to abolish the current set-top integration rules altogether because common reliance of the CableCARD is now established. Cable is also of the belief that market forces, rather than a new set of rules as envisioned by AllVid, should determine the course forward.

Officials for the AllVid group have not yet commented on the Comcast-TiVo agreement, which did receive praise from Anna Eshoo (D-Calif), the ranking member of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee.

Klugman points out that the work with Comcast isn’t just about TiVo, as the MSO intends to license the technology to other MVPDs and CE companies. But he also acknowledged that it’s not a cross-industry standard, either.

“We’d love to see it broadly adopted, and if that meant it became a de facto standard at some point in time because it was the most commercially-adopted, that would be a great thing. But we’re happy to let the market drive that,” Klugman said.

Comcast isn’t providing any technical detail on its ideas for a non-CableCARD solution, noting that it’s still “premature” to provide that information.

Klugman said TiVo isn’t in position to provide details, either, but believes the outcome of that work will provide the customer with an approach that is “far superior” to having to use a physical devices such as the CableCARD.

“How the conditional access gets…to the box is really for them [Comcast] still to decide,” Klugman said, though he expects that TiVo will be providing guidance and input as Comcast develops the technology. “They want it to work. For that solution to work, they’ll have to engage us…early and frequently.”

Timing on when Comcast’s non-CableCARD approach will be ready for prime time hasn’t been disclosed, but that solution and the legacy CableCARD platform “will run in tandem for some reasonably long period of time to ensure that there’s no gap,” Klugman said.