[opendtv] Re: PR: Majority of New HDTVs Powered By ATI
- From: "Dale Kelly" <dalekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:43:58 -0800
I said:
>>How the cable industry was brought to this initiative is of interest and I
>>have not heard that the FCC was involved.
Craig responded:
> Perhaps a little background history is in order here...
Interesting. So Congressional/FCC action made the cable STB unprofitable and
thereby moved that industry to propose DTV Plug and Play. Now I know the
"rest of the story".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Birkmaier" <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 11:20 AM
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:
