[opendtv] Re: PR: Majority of New HDTVs Powered By ATI
- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jan 1980 00:19:21 -0800
Wasn't it also the only bill vetoed by Bush 41? (If so, more significant
than the only passed after a veto.)
John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Craig Birkmaier
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 11:21 AM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: PR: Majority of New HDTVs Powered By ATI
At 4:37 PM -0800 11/15/04, Dale Kelly wrote:
>The inclusion of a digital "tuner" (cable Plug and Play feature) in DTV
sets
>was an Cable Industry initiative which required FCC approval and to my
>knowledge was not pro forma. One quid pro quo for such approval was that an
>ATSC tuner be included in such sets and these are the ATI tuners of which
we
>speak.
>How the cable industry was brought to this initiative is of interest and I
>have not heard that the FCC was involved.
Perhaps a little background history is in order here.
In the early '90s, there was tremendous public pressure on Congress
do something about rapidly rising cable rates. The Cable Television
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (the "Cable Act")
gave the FCC power to re-regulate the Cable industry. FYI, this was
the ONLY bill that was passed over a Presidential veto during the
first Bush administration.
Among the provisions of that bill was a mandate for the FCC to
unbundle consumer premises equipment, and to limit the charges that a
cable company could levy for certain aspects of the customer premises
wiring. Prior to this legislation, a cable company could charge a
monthly fee for each set served in a home. The legislation made it
clear that cable companies COULD NOT prevent a consumer from using a
"third-party" STB that was technically compatible with the system.
Here is an excerpt from an FCC FAQ on the 1992 Cable Act that
provides additional details:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/nrcb4009.txt
February 22, 1994
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING
CABLE TELEVISION REGULATIONS
The Federal Communications Commission has adopted a number of rules
regarding cable television as required by the Cable Television
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (the "Cable Act").
The following information answers some frequently asked questions
about cable television regulation.
.........
Q: My cable operator tells me that now I have to use equipment which
I didn't need before, such as a converter box or a remote control,
and they want to charge me for the use of this equipment. Do I have
to use their equipment and do I have to pay for it?
A: Cable operators may require their subscribers to use specific
equipment, such as converters, to receive the basic service tier.
They may include a separate charge on your bill to lease this
equipment to you on a monthly basis. This monthly rate must be based
on the operator's actual costs of providing the equipment to you.
Operators may also sell equipment to you, with or without a service
contract. If an operator provides a choice between selling and
leasing the equipment, the monthly leasing rate will be regulated but
the sales price will be unregulated. If an operator only sells
equipment and does not also lease equipment, then the sales price
must be the actual cost of the equipment plus a reasonable profit,
and any service contract should be based on the estimated cost to
service the equipment. If the customer buys the equipment but does
not purchase a service contract, the customer can be charged for
repairs and maintenance. Cable operators may not prevent customers
from using their own equipment if such equipment is technically
compatible with the cable system.
The rules require that charges for converters, remote controls,
connections for additional televisions, and cable home wiring be
listed separately on your bill. If you have a question about the
rates your cable operator is charging for equipment, you should
contact your local franchising authority.
--------------
At that point in time, the FCC was trying to work out the details of
how the shift to digital television would impact the cable industry
and the consumer premises equipment that would be needed. This was
going on in parallel with the ACATS process, so we (myself, Gary
Demos, and several people from groups at MIT) had the opportunity to
work with the staff at the FCC to help them understand the issues and
what would be required. For those who are interested, the following
.pdf document written by Joseph Bailey of MIT provides significant
insights to the issues that were being considered at that time.
http:itc.mit.edu/rpcp/Pubs/settop_mkt/settop2.pdf
Given the pending changes in technology, the FCC chose to focus on
digital cable boxes, as there appeared to be little interest among
CEA members to go after the Analog STB market. The 1996
Telecommunications Act expanded the FCCs role in this area, requiring
the FCC to develop regulations to open the market for set-top boxes
for cable systems. The pertinent portion of the legislation is
provided below:
CABLE EQUIPMENT COMPATIBILITY- Section 624A (47 U.S.C. 544A) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking `and' at the end of paragraph (2),
by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting `;
and'; and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(4) compatibility among televisions, video cassette recorders, and
cable systems can be assured with narrow technical standards that
mandate a minimum degree of common design and operation, leaving all
features, functions, protocols, and other product and service options
for selection through open competition in the market.';
(2) in subsection (c)(1)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as subparagraphs (B)
and (C), respectively; and (B) by inserting before such redesignated
subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraph:
`(A) the need to maximize open competition in the market for all
features, functions, protocols, and other product and service options
of converter boxes and other cable converters unrelated to the
descrambling or decryption of cable television signals;';
and (3) in subsection (c)(2)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as subparagraphs (E)
and (F), respectively; and (B) by inserting after subparagraph (C)
the following new subparagraph:
`(D) to ensure that any standards or regulations developed under the
authority of this section to ensure compatibility between
televisions, video cassette recorders, and cable systems do not
affect features, functions, protocols, and other product and service
options other than those specified in paragraph (1)(B), including
telecommunications interface equipment, home automation
communications, and computer network services;'.
This is how the FCC got into the middle of the battle to open up the
markets for Cable STBs.
From this point the FCC started putting pressure on the CEA and Cable
industry to develop open standards for cable STBs. Cable Labs created
the OpenCable initiative to set these standards, and the FCC
continued to prod the CEA and cable industry to work this out, rather
than the Commission setting technical standards. The rest is history,
as the FCC blessed the agreement between the CEA and Cable industry
regarding one-way cable compatibility. But the foot dragging
continues, as the CEA and Cable industries are still trying to work
out the technical specs for two-way compatibility.
So bottom line, I guess you can say that the cable industry has been
just as involved in the openCable initiative as they were in the ATSC
standard. They let the industries work out the details, rather than
taking the lead and developing both the Digital Broadcast and
OpenCable standards.
Having been in the middle of this, I can say with some degree of
credibility that this has delayed the DTV transition by at least a
decade, while significantly increasing the complexity of digital
television systems. Unfortunately, there is no one to blame at the
FCC, since this mess has been allowed to fester by three FCC Chairmen
and a long list of Commissioners, each of which has been placed in
the unenviable position of trying to prop up the bad decisions made
by their predecessors.
Hope this helps...
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
