U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–572 2012

THE NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN: COMPETITIVE 

AVAILABILITY OF NAVIGATION DEVICES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, 

TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 29, 2010 

Serial No. 111–117 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Ranking Member 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Rick Boucher, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, opening statement ............................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 6 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 7 

Hon. Mary Bono Mack, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 8 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 9 

Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 95 

WITNESSES

Michael T. Williams, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Sony 

Electronics, Inc. .................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 98 

Kyle McSlarrow, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Cable and 

Telecommunications Association ........................................................................ 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 99 

Matthew Zinn, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Chief Privacy 

Officer, TiVo ......................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 106 

Eric Shanks, Executive Vice President, Entertainment, DirecTV ....................... 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 108 

Harold Feld, Legal Director, Public Knowledge .................................................... 52 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

David E. Young, Vice President, Federal Regulatory Affairs, Verizon ............... 68 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 70 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 114 

SUBMITTED MATERIALS FOR THE RECORD

Letter of April 28, 2010, from the Motion Picture Association of America 

to the Subcommittee, submitted by Mrs. Bono Mack ....................................... 97 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
(1) 

THE NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN: COMPETITIVE AVAILABILITY OF NAVIGATION DEVICES 

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, 

AND THE INTERNET, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 

Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rick Boucher 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Boucher, Markey, Eshoo, Doyle, McNerney, Welch, Stearns, Shimkus, Buyer, and Bono Mack. 

Also Present: Representative Latta. 

Staff Present: Roger Sherman, Chief Counsel; Tim Powderly, 

Counsel; Greg Guice, Counsel; Shawn Chang, Counsel; Amy Levine, Counsel; Michiel Perry, Intern; Sarah Fisher, Special Assistant; Neil Fried, Minority Counsel; Will Carty, Minority Professional Staff; and Garrett Golding, Minority Legislative Analyst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. BOUCHER. The subcommittee will come to order. Good morning to everyone. Today the subcommittee considers the steps that 

will be necessary in order to enable television viewers to go to electronic stores and shop for set-top boxes, much the way that people 

shop for television sets today. The set-top boxes would be made by 

a variety of manufacturers who would compete with each other and 

operate various features such as digital video recording or Internetbased functionality. Competition would also be based on the price 

of the box. Some of the more capable devices could become the hubs 

for a home entertainment center, switching information of all kinds 

throughout the household. The boxes, whether simple or sophisticated, would all have the key capability that is not present today, 

and that is the ability to receive the input of television channels 

from any cable or satellite company and then display those channels on television sets. 

If that capability is assured, set-top boxes will become competitively available and a tremendous amount of innovation would then 

occur in the design, the manufacture, and the marketing of set-top 

boxes. TV viewers will be able to make a one-time purchase of a 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

set-top box and then keep it in service, even if they switch their 

cable provider. 

We have long tried to achieve the goal of making what we call 

navigation devices competitively available. In fact, our effort dates 

from the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in which we directed the 

FCC to adopt rules to assure plug-and-play capability between competitively available set-top boxes and all cable systems. Now, almost 15 years later, that plug-and-play capability remains an elusive goal. 

This morning we consider the next steps that should be taken to 

help us achieve it. In the National Broadband Plan recently released by the FCC, the Commission appropriately highlighted the 

need for a direct to consumer market for navigation devices and 

the benefits that devices with both TV inputs and Internet access 

can bring to our overall effort to enhance broadband adoption. 

I was pleased that the FCC published a notice of inquiry as a 

first step in assuring that by the end of 2012, all cable and satellite 

TV providers include with their services a simple gateway device 

that converts the cable or satellite company’s TV signal into a common output that then could be processed by whatever set-top box 

the viewer may own. In the shorter term, the Commission is proceeding with a notice of proposed rulemaking with the goal of addressing the shortcomings in the existing CableCARD program as 

an interim measure until gateway devices are widely deployed. 

The CableCARD is used by TiVo which is the major provider of 

digital video recorders that today are available at retail for conditional access to cable programs. A workable CableCARD system 

could bring other providers into this market as well. To date, the 

CableCARD regime has been riddled with complications. First, the 

installation of CableCARDs typically involves several multiple-hour 

visits by sometimes untrained technicians. Secondly, pricing of the 

CableCARD has been inconsistent and is often very expensive. 

Third, some cable operators have been moving programming to 

switched video platforms to make more efficient use of their bandwidth. 

But a CableCARD-enabled device cannot access switched digital 

video without substantial and somewhat awkward motivations that 

are difficult to achieve. Revised CableCARD rules are therefore 

needed for the near term as the Commission moves to implement 

the gateway device proposal by the end of 2012. 

Our witnesses today will speak to the barriers that we must 

overcome for TV viewers to realize the benefits of true set-top box 

plug-and-play capability. I want to thank each of them for joining 

us here this morning. We will turn to your testimony shortly. That 

concludes my opening statement. And I am pleased to recognize 

now the ranking Republican member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boucher follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
3 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 7 here 76572A.001

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN RICK BOUCHER 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet Hearing 

The National Broadband Plan: Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices 

April 29, 2010 

Good morning. 

Today the Subcommittee considers the steps that will be necessary to enable 

TV viewers to go to electronics stores and shop for set-top boxes much the same 

way people shop for TV sets today. 

The set-top boxes would be made by a variety of manufacturers who would 

compete with each other in offering various features such as digital video 

recording, or Internet based functionality. Competition would also be based on the 

price of the box. 

Some of the more capable devices could become the hubs for a home 

entertainment center, switching information of all kinds throughout the household. 

The boxes, whether simple or sophisticated, would all have a key capability 

not present today, and that is the ability to receive the input of TV channels from 

any cable or satellite company and display those channels on TV sets. 

If that capability is assured, set-top boxes will become competitively 

available, and a tremendous amount of innovation will occur in their design, 

manufacture and marketing. 

TV viewers will be able to make a one-time purchase of a set-top box and 

keep it in service even if they switch cable providers. 

We have long tried to achieve the goal of making what we call navigation 

devices competitively available. 

In fact our effOli dates from the Telecom Act of 1996 when we directed the 

FCC to adopt rules to assure plug and play capability between competitively 

available set-top boxes and all cable systems. 
4 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 8 here 76572A.002

Almost 15 years later, that plug and play capability still does not exist. 

This morning we consider the next steps that should be taken. 

In the National Broadband Plan, the FCC appropriately highlighted the need 

for a direct to consumer market for navigation devices and the benefits that devices 

with both TV inputs and Internet access can bring to our effort to expand 

broadband adoption. 

I was pleased that the FCC published a Notice ofInquiry as a first step in 

assuring that by the end of 20 12 all cable and satellite TV providers include with 

their services a simple gateway device that converts the cable or satellite 

company's TV signals into a common output that could be processed by whatever 

set-top box the viewer may own. 

In the shorter term, the Commission is proceeding with a Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making with the goal of addressing the shortcomings in the existing 

CableCARD program as an interim measure until gateway devices are widely 

deployed. 

The CableCARD is used by TIVO, the major provider of digital video 

recorders available at retail for conditional access to cable programs. A workable 

CableCARD system could bring other providers into the market as well. 

To date, the CableCARD regime has been riddled with complications. First, 

installation of a CableCARD typically involves several multi-hour visits by 

sometimes untrained technicians. Second, pricing of the CableCARD has been 

inconsistent and is often expensive. Third, some cable operators have been moving 

programming to switched digital platforms to make more efficient use of their 

bandwidth. But, a CableCARD-enabled device cannot access switched digital 

video without modifications. 

Revised CableCARD rules are needed for the nearterm as the Commission 

moves to implement the gateway device proposal by the end of2012. 

Our witnesses today will speak to the batTiers we must overcome for TV 

viewers to realize the benefits of true set-top box plug and play capability. 
5 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. STEARNS. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman. And 

I welcome all of our witnesses this morning. The FCC issued their 

broadband plan, which is almost 400 pages. The font was about 8 

points. Say you go to page 49, there is a little paragraph called 4.2 

devices. So you read through that, get a little further along, you 

get to the recommendation, 4.12, 12. Now, you don’t think too 

much about it, but you read through it and you realize it has huge 

implications. And that is why our witnesses are here and this is 

why this morning we are having this hearing. 

The video marketplace is completely different today than it was 

when we passed the original set-top box provisions in 1992 and 

1996. Back then, my colleagues, cable providers served between 90 

and 100 percent of subscription TV households. Today there is a robust video competition as evidenced by the fact that satellite and 

phone companies now serve one-third of subscription TV households. And the video market is only getting more and more competitive. 

Congress and the FCC need to be careful as it looks to impose 

the new regulations, and perhaps some of the recommendations are 

outlined in this recommendation 4.12. Being able to access the 

Internet from a television is certainly an appealing idea to many 

consumers. As such, the market already seems to be delivering this 

service without any government assistance. According to the Consumer Electronics Association, in the next couple of years, every 

TV will be able to connect to the Internet wirelessly. In addition, 

industry analysts predict that more than 70 million Internet-connected TVs will ship in 2012, up from 15 million in 2009. And the 

number of such TVs in the U.S. will reach 80 million by the year 

2013. 

Furthermore, we have seen that the reverse, people using their 

computers to watch TV shows and movies, is already a booming industry. Hula.com, for example, had almost a million videos viewed 

just in February. Congress and the FCC need to tread very carefully, in my opinion, when attempting to impose technology mandates. Let the past be our guide. 

The FCC has been unsuccessful trying to artificially create settop box competition through technology mandates for almost 20 

years. Despite all of their regulatory efforts, the FCC concedes that 

attempts to manufacture a third-party device market have failed. 

Cable operators have been required to foist approximately 20 million CableCARDs at a cost of more than $1 million on subscribers 

that elect to use operator-provided devices. Subscribers, on the 

other hand, have chosen to use only 500,000 CableCARDs with 

third-party devices. 

In response, most manufacturers have decided not to develop 

CableCARD devices. Part of the problem is that the subscription 

TV and device markets continue to develop rapidly. This has had 

two interrelated consequences. 

First, technology has outpaced the rules, making the inflexible 

CableCARD regime less than useful. Second, rather than buy settop boxes and risk obsolescence, most customers rent from the 

cable operator and simply upgrade when cable operators roll out 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
6 

their new features, such as high definition, video on demand, and 

interactive services. 

Trying to artificially create set-top box competition by forcing 

subscription TV providers to support one-size-fits-all gateway devices is unlikely to fare any better than similar attempts by the 

FCC through their technology mandates for the past 20 years. 

What the FCC could not accomplish when subscription TV was 

an analog cable-centered linear video platform will only be harder 

for a digital, interactive, Internet-enabled video platform that is 

populated by diverse cable satellite and phone company architectures. 

While the gateway device proposal stems from a national 

broadband plan recommendation, the question is how this mandate 

promotes broadband is not quite clear. Since most subscription TV 

households likely already have broadband. 

Making the government a gateway between providers and the 

customer is unlikely, in my opinion, to be productive; at best, 

micromanaging the devices’ providers will increase costs for consumers, hinder investment, and slow innovation. At worst, it is a 

veiled attempt to advance network neutrality and other regulations 

of that sort. 

The lack of set-top box competition in the past was not caused 

by a market failure, but because there was no market. With the 

rise of alternative subscription TV providers in the Internet, consumer needs are evolving; the market for third-party video devices 

is following suit. The FCC would do better to avoid mandates and 

allow current innovation to simply continue and to flourish. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing. I look forward our 

witnesses. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Stearns. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo, is recognized for 2 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing 

on another important recommendation contained in the FCC’s National Broadband Plan. As you know, I represent the heart of Silicon Valley, and it is a place where many companies and industries 

live by the mantra ‘‘innovate or die.’’ 

The issues of innovation and competition in the plan reflect the 

legislative initiatives that I pursued on behalf of my district for 

many years. In 1996, when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act, I partnered with my great pal, Ed Markey, on including a provision, section 629, to encourage innovation through competition in the set-top box market. In the 14 years since, we have 

only seen minor steps forward in creating new technologies. 

It is true that the cable industry did take it upon themselves to 

create CableCARD as a follow-up to the FCC’s order to implement 

section 629. But as the FCC recognizes in its National Broadband 

Plan, quote, despite congressional and FCC intentions, 

CableCARDs have failed to stimulate a competitive retail market 

for set-top boxes. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
7 

The FCC’s recommendation to address this assessment is to have 

all multichannel video programming distributors install a gateway 

device in subscribers’ homes by December 31, 2012. In the interim, 

they also recommend that cable operators fix the problems associated with CableCARD no later than October of this year. And that 

is not that far away. 

So I am encouraged by consumer principles recently released by 

the cable industry and their announced commitment to work with 

the FCC and the set-top boxes industry to create consumer choice 

and drive innovation. 

I am interested to hear how the rest of the panel that is here 

today think these principles will be applied. We haven’t discussed 

CableCARDs, set-top boxes in this committee for a number of 

years. I remember the issue well. I had just come on to the committee. So it is important to revisit it so that we can leapfrog into 

the future. 

So I look forward to hearing from all of the witnesses. And, Mr. 

Chairman, again, thank you for these hearings on the FCC’s National Broadband Plan. Thank you. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Eshoo. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, is recognized for 2 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am still trying to figure out the problem. We have a National Broadband Plan. We need 

to map those areas that are unserved or that are underserved, and 

we need to use the market and our capabilities to make sure that 

everybody has at least a level of high-speed Internet access. And 

I don’t get what the frustration or the misunderstanding of the capitalist market is all about. 

It is the consumers who drive demand; business then fills to 

meet the demand. It is a system that works. Every time we intervene and try to push a service on the public through government, 

we fail. Listen, we have got video on watches, we have got videos 

in automobiles, we have got video on phones. We get video over 

copper, we get video over cable, we get video terrestrially, we get 

video over the satellite. We ought to be focusing on getting highspeed Internet access to unserved areas and underserved areas. 

That is where our focus should be, and let the competitive marketplace meet the demand that the public wants to be met and not 

use government to force a demand in an area where the public is 

not going. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Shimkus. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, is recognized for 

2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I will give you a little known fact about myself. I like bands like Earth, Wind and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
8 

Fire. And I am going to tell you another secret. Kenneth likes to 

watch Soul Train reruns, complete with vintage Johnson Hair Care 

Products advertisements on demand. And much to our delight, our 

respective cable companies offer those services. 

But the only way I can fill my house back in Pittsburgh with the 

hippest trip in America is with a cable box provided by the cable 

company, not from a box or a TV I can purchase at retail, even if 

I think that box gives me a better user experience and has features 

that I find useful, like maybe Internet connectivity. 

Now, according to the Census Bureau, 30 percent of Americans 

have never used the Internet, but 99 percent of Americans have a 

television and over 85 percent of Americans have some form of pay 

TV service. Those numbers overlap. I agree with Chairman Boucher on this issue, and appreciate and respect his leadership, which 

is why I am glad that the FCC’s National Broadband Plan identified this as an issue that could help drive demand for Internet access. 

I look forward to a final rule fixing some issues with CableCARD 

technology, and I look forward to all of the witnesses today talking 

about the FCC’s notice of inquiry about how all devices can work 

with all video providers in the future. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Doyle. 

I haven’t had to worry about hair care products in quite some 

time now, but I am glad that you are still concerned. 

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, is recognized for 2 

minutes. Oh, he is no longer with us. 

The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Buyer, passes and will have 2 

minutes added to his questioning time. 

And the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Bono Mack, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARY BONO MACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Good morning, Chairman Boucher, Ranking 

Member Stearns and distinguished panel. The subject matter before us today is highly complex. We are confronting issues surrounding how video entertainment is delivered to the American 

consumer and an increased use of our television as a means of accessing the Internet. Both involve capital-intensive areas of our 

economy, and I think the FCC and Congress should proceed with 

extreme caution. 

At the outset, I would like the record to express my support for 

policies that provide individuals and companies with the freedom 

to innovate. Such freedom allows bright minds to develop products 

like video on demand and DVR. Therefore, beyond the equal application of existing laws and regulations, I am wary of the government mandating technical standards beyond section 629 or the regulations surrounding the Commission’s implementation of that law. 

In addition to my concerns surrounding technical mandates, I 

also would like to remind the committee about the importance of 

content protections. Few people are investing in set-top boxes to 

watch hearings like this one on C–SPAN, no matter how exhilaVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:56 Jan 19, 2013 Jkt 076572 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A572.XXX A572

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
9 

rating we might think this discussion ultimately is, especially with 

Mr. Doyle’s admission of Earth, Wind and Fire. But consumers 

want a complete viewing experience that maximizes the capabilities of the technology they have purchased. 

The viewing experiences of the consumer are the work of a large 

number of people who have to get paid. The only way they get paid 

is when their content is protected and sold, not stolen. As such, the 

manufacturers of set-top boxes play a vital role in the delivery and 

protection of content. 

I believe that no matter how we ultimately move forward, the 

protection of content should remain a high priority. To further 

make this point, I would like to submit a letter from the Motion 

Picture Association of America. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to today’s discussion 

and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mrs. Bono Mack. And without objection, the letter you have mentioned will be made a part 

of our record. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BOUCHER. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, 

is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And thank 

you for your leadership on this issue. Back in 1993 when I was 

chairman of the subcommittee, I worked with Jack Fields on the 

National Communications Competition and Information Infrastructure Act, H.R. 3636. And like the National Broadband Plan’s recommendation on set-top boxes, our bill was designed to unleash 

competition and innovation in the retail marketplace, enabling consumers to buy the set-top box of their choice independent of their 

network provider. 

The bill passed the House overwhelmingly in June of 1994, 423- 

to-4. But it wasn’t until the next Congress that the set-top box language was included as a Bliley-Markey amendment incorporated 

into the 1996 Telecommunications Act, becoming section 629 of the 

statute. 

In the age of the smart phone, we can think of these devices now 

as smart video boxes, the converter boxes, set-top boxes, modems 

consumers use daily, the devices that ideally would help them navigate to the video and information sources of their choice. 

Fourteen years is an eternity in telecommunications policy. We 

might as well be talking about the Peloponnesian laws or the last 

time the Bruins won the Stanley Cup. But it is clear, however, that 

over the last 14 years, the promise of the smart-phone box provision has not been fulfilled. 

While there have been tremendous innovations in two of the 

three main devices for connecting to broadband service, smart 

phones and personal computers, the set-top box has been the box 

that time forgot. It is simply not as smart or as available as it 

should be for consumers. And that is about to change with the 

April 21st issuance of the notice of inquiry and a further notice of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
10 

proposed rulemaking, as recommended by the National Broadband 

Plan. 

The FCC is now beginning to seek ways to effectively implement 

section 629 from 14 years ago, to give greater choice to consumers 

and increase broadband adoption. So this is going to be a huge 

change; it will make the consumer king, which should be our goal. 

Just get out of the way, let them have a technology that lets them 

go anywhere they want to go, do anything they want to do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. We are on 

the dawn of a brand new and I think best era we have ever had 

in telecommunications. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Markey. 

The gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch, is recognized for 2 

minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will pass. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Welch. And we will 

add 2 minutes to your time for questioning our panel of witnesses 

today. 

All members have been recognized for their statements. And we 

are now pleased to turn to our panel of witnesses and we thank 

each of you for your attendance here this morning. 

Mr. Michael Williams is the Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Sony Electronics. 

Mr. Kyle McSlarrow is the President and Chief Executive Officer 

of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. 

Mr. Matthew Zinn is the Senior Vice President, General Counsel 

and Chief Privacy Officer for TiVo. 

Mr. Eric Shanks is the Executive Vice President of Entertainment at DirecTV. 

Mr. Harold Feld is the Legal Director for Public Knowledge. 

And Mr. David Young is the Vice President of Federal Regulatory Affairs at Verizon. 

Each of these gentlemen is deeply knowledgeable about the matter we are discussing here this morning. And we want to thank all 

of you for coming and joining us and sharing your views with us. 

Without objection, your full prepared written statements will be 

made a part of our record. We would welcome your oral presentations and ask that you try to keep those to approximately 5 minutes, and that will give us ample time to exchange ideas and ask 

questions of you. 

STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL T. WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, SONY ELECTRONICS, 

INC.; KYLE MCSLARROW, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, NATIONAL CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

ASSOCIATION; MATTHEW ZINN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

GENERAL COUNSEL AND CHIEF PRIVACY OFFICER, TIVO; 

ERIC SHANKS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, ENTERTAINMENT, DIRECTV; HAROLD FELD, LEGAL DIRECTOR, PUBLIC 

KNOWLEDGE; AND DAVID E. YOUNG, VICE PRESIDENT, FEDERAL REGULATORY AFFAIRS, VERIZON 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Williams, we will be happy to begin with you, 

and I would ask that you hold your microphone as close to you as 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
11 

you can. I think even closer than that would be good. We can hear 

you much better. Be sure you have turned it on. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL T. WILLIAMS 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Good morning, Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Stearns, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for allowing Sony Electronics this opportunity to testify 

on this very important issue. Sony is here today to lend its support 

to the FCC’s National Broadband Plan and specifically to the gateway device proposal it describes. When implemented, it will bring 

consumers better value and a nearly infinite number of choices for 

news, information, and entertainment. The gateway device will 

allow true competition among content owners, service providers, 

and device manufacturers like Sony. And we all know where there 

is true robust competition, prices drop and services improve. 

The concept of an MVPD gateway is not something new or revolutionary. In fact, this service model has been discussed among device manufacturers in the MVPD community for many years. The 

gateway concept is a natural evolutionary step in the progression 

of television viewing. 

For the first 50 years, what we might call TV 1.0, consumers received video through one national standard that applied to all overthe-air broadcasters. It was easy to use, it worked well and it allowed for a host of innovation and competition in the television receiver market. 

Starting in the 1970s, we entered into TV 2.0, the MVPD age, 

first through cable, then satellite and, most recently, telephone 

companies. TV 2.0 expanded consumer choice from a handful of 

channels to hundreds, and the technology has evolved from one to 

many, but it came with a price—the lack of interoperability. 

Now we are at the dawn of TV 3.0, a confluence of the Internet 

and traditional MVPD services. TV 3.0 will leverage the power of 

the Internet to enable consumers to tailor their television viewing 

in ways we can only imagine. It will enable viewers to interact with 

the program they receive and with each other. More importantly, 

it will give consumers the tools they need to man their programming choices to get what they want, when they want it, and to decide where they will view it. 

Now, you may ask, What does this new TV 3.0 world have to do 

with set-top boxes; why do Congress and the FCC need to be involved? The answer, we look back when we changed from TV 1.0 

to 2.0. Over-the-air broadcasts relied on a single nationwide standard to transmit a television signal from the station to the viewer. 

In the MVPD age, there is no single nationwide transmission 

standard. Every cable operator, every satellite operator uses something different. Consumers simply subscribe to one MVPD provider, 

and they don’t want to spend the extra money to buy a device that 

can receive every one of these many different signals. The genius 

of this universal gateway device in this approach is that it combines the best of both worlds. It dramatically facilitates the integration of Internet-delivered video and data along with traditional 

MVPD services. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
12 

Simply put, the gateway device is a translator. It takes the 

transmission signal from the service provider and translates it into 

an output signal that all retail consumer devices can understand. 

Now, there are other elements that are necessary for the gateway approach to work. First, consumer devices such as televisions 

need to operate on a level playing field against each other, which 

requires the use of a common national standard. 

Second, in order to provide an innovative consumer experience, 

the device needs to be able to tell the consumer what content is 

available and to access it. 

Third, the output from the gateway device must be simple and 

open, like the existing Wi-Fi or USB standards. This output standard should not come with extraneous licensing or technical obligations that would hinder innovation, impair widespread implementation and offer consumers little value. It is clear there are details 

that need to be filled in, but the committee should understand that 

the technologies necessary to implement this gateway device are in 

wide use today and they existed for many years. 

Sony believes that the gateway device is a workable solution to 

implement the congressional mandate contained in section 629. All 

of us, this committee, the FCC, the service providers, content providers, manufacturers and consumers have a stake in bringing television into its third age. Sony is convinced that the Commission’s 

gateway proposal can and will succeed for all stakeholders. And we 

look forward to joining these stakeholders to make TV 3.0 a reality. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Williams. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
13 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 17 here 76572A.003

TestimonyofMichacl T. Williams 

Executive Vice President and General Counsel 

Sony Electronics Inc. 

Before the Subcommittee on Communications, 

Technology and the Internet 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

April 29, 2010 

Chainnan Boucher, Ranking 'Vlcmber Stearns, and distinguished members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for allowing Sony Electronics this 0pPOliunity to testify on this very 

important issue. 

Sony is here today to lend its support to the National Broadband Plan proposed by the 

Federal Communications Commission and specifically the "gateway device" proposal. When 

implemented, it will bring consumers both better value and an infinite number of choices of ncws, 

information and entertainment. The gateway device will allow for true competition among 

content owners, service providers and device manufacturers like Sony, and we all know where 

there is hue, robust competition, prices drop and service offerings improve. 

The concept of an all-inclusive Multichannel Video Pro!,'Tamming Distributor (MVPD) 

gateway is not something new or revolutionary. In fact, this service model has been discussed 

among CE and IT manufacturers and the MVPD community for many years. Indeed, the 

National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCT A) advocated a version of a universal 

gateway device in its filings before the FCC in 2007. 

A universal gateway device is a natural, evolutionary step in the progression of television 

viewing over time. For its first fifty or so years, TV 1.0, consumers received video through one 

technology - a national standard that applied to all over-the-air broadcasters. It was easy to use, 

it worked well, and allowed for a host of innovation and competition in the television receiver 

market. 

But in the 1970's and early J 980'5, we entered into TV 2.0, the MVPD age, first through 

cable operators, then through direct broadcast satellite services, and most recently through video 

services provided by telephone companies. TV 2.0 expanded consumer choice from a handful of 

channels to hundreds, and the technologies involved from Olle to many. But the proliferation of 

all those different MVPD services came with a price, namely the lack of interoperability between 

the different service providers. 

Now, we are at the dawn afTV 3.0, a confluence of the Internet and traditional MVPD 

services. TV 3.0 will leverage the massive power of the Internet to enable consumers to tailor 

their television viewing in ways we can only imagine. It will give consumers a broader array of 

programming choices. It will enable viewers to interact with the programming they receive and 

with each other. Most importantly -- and a key task for companies like Sony -- it will give 

consumers the tools they need to manage their programming choices to get what they want, when 

they want it, and to decide where they will view it. 
14 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 18 here 76572A.004

Now you may ask, what docs this new TV 3.0 world have to do with set-top boxes') Why 

do Congress and the FCC need to be involved? 

The answer requires us to look back at the change fi'om TV 1.0 to TV 2.0. Over-the-air 

broadcast television relies on a single nationwide standard to transmit a digital television signal 

from the station to the viewer. Under the Communications Act and FCC regulations, every TV 

slation in the countlY transmits using that standard, and every television in the country must be 

capable of receiving it. In that environment we had robust competition among device 

manufacturers and content providers. 

In TV 2.0, there is no single nationwide transmission standard .- every cable operator, 

every satellite provider, uses something different. Since consumers typically subscribe to a 

single MVPD at a time, they do not want to spend the extra money to buy a television that can 

receive everyone oflhesc many different signals. And without consumcr demand, no 

manufacturer is incentivized to make such a device. Instead, consumers are willing to rent a settop box that only receives the specific signal that their provider uses bulno others. 

The genius of a universal gateway device approach is that it combincs the best of both 

worlds and dramatically facilitates the integration of lnternet-delivered video with traditional 

MVPD services. Simply put, the gateway is a translator. It takes the transmission signal from 

Time Wal11er, FiOS, Direct TV or any other competing MVPD service provider and translates it 

into a signal nationwide standard that retail consumer devices can understand. 

There are other elements that are necessary to the success of a gateway approach. First, 

consumer devices need to operate on a level playing field against each other which requires the 

use of this common national standard. 

Second, in order to provide the best possible consumer experience, the device needs to be 

able to tell the consumer what content is available on the MVPD service and how to access it. 

Third, the national standard output from the gateway device must be simple and open --

like the existing HDMl, WiFi or USB interface standards, for example. It should not come with 

extraneous licensing or technical obligations that would deter widespread implementation and 

offer consumers little added value. 

Sony believes the gateway device is a workable solution to implement the Congressional 

mandatc contained in Section 629. We're here because wc're excited to build the 3.0 version of 

TVs and other devices and to give consumers unparalleled access to news, information and 

entertainment. Looking at the gateway proposal in the National Broadband Plan, it's clear that 

there are dctails that nccd to be filled in. But the Committee should understand that the 

technologies necessary to implement a gateway model are in wide use today, and have existed 

for many years. 

All of us - this Subcommittee, the FCC, service providers, content providers, 

manufacturers and consumers - have a stake in bringing television viewing into its third age. 

Sony is convinced that if we all work together, the Commission's gateway proposal can and will 

succeed. 

Sony looks forward to joining these stakeholders to make Television 3.0 a reality. 

2 
15 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. McSlarrow. 

STATEMENT OF KYLE MCSLARROW 

Mr. MCSLARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Stearns and distinguished members of the subcommittee. First let 

me just state at the outset that we are very supportive of the direction the FCC is going both with its notice of inquiry and the 

NPRM. We think what they presented is a very thoughtful case for 

innovation that ties together really 2 strands that I think it is 

worth taking just a moment to unpack. The first strand, as you 

have identified, Mr. Chairman, and others, goes back to section 

629, which is how do you create a competitive retail market for devices. It is not just set-tops. It could be televisions or other navigation devices. That marketplace hasn’t taken off. It hasn’t taken off 

principally for two reasons: one, CableCARDs were functionally deployed in one-way devices at a time when the world was turning 

two-way. So you have one-way devices with CableCARDs and there 

really is no consumer demand for one-way devices. Really at this 

moment in time, TiVo is really the only remaining successful player in that field. 

The second reason it didn’t take off is pretty obvious. Right now 

CableCARDs, with the exception of Verizon, are only used by cable 

companies; and therefore if you buy a device that is a CableCARD 

device, you can’t actually take it to another competitor. In today’s 

world, in 2010, four out of ten consumers take a multichannel video 

service from somebody other than a cable company. 

The second strand is what was really identified in the broadband 

plan, which is totally apart from whether or not there is a retail 

market: What do we do, what are the opportunities and challenges 

of integrating television and video on the Internet? And I think 

what we tried to do is put those two together in a way that we are 

actually very intrigued by. 

Now, I think there are a lot of unanswered questions. And to be 

fair to the FCC, they have teed up most of those questions which 

is why they started with an NOY. But I think our role in terms 

of the cable industry is to think about not so much the past, but 

what the opportunities are for the future. And to that end, as Ms. 

Eshoo said, we actually submitted to the FCC and to this subcommittee a set of consumer principles. What are the goals here? 

Now, we have identified a couple that we think everybody should 

be able to sign up to. One, we do think consumers ought to be able 

to connect devices to their multichannel video service without at 

least a set-top box. They ought to have a retail market. Number 

two, we think that consumers ought to be able to take those devices they do purchase at retail and move them from one provider 

to another, which promotes competition. Third, we think that consumers should have the option of being able to access Internet; in 

particular, to access Internet video. Fourth, we think, more than 

that, they ought to have the ability to search across all of the platforms so that they can identify video on whatever the multichannel 

service is providing, whether it is video on demand or a linear 

channel or YouTube or Netflix or some other service that is emerging on the Internet platform. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
16 

Now, the caution we have is that we are skeptics of government 

technology mandates. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be 

at the table doing the hard work necessary to try to achieve those 

goals. And we have committed to the FCC and we commit to you 

that we will do that. 

There is still a host of issues that are unanswered. We actually 

conceptually talked about ideas like the gateway device that Mike 

was just talking about a moment ago. I am not sure a gateway device is fully fleshed out right now. At a conceptual level there 

should be some interface that we ought to be able to work toward 

that allows us to accomplish those goals. But there are still enormous issues related to content protection, a lot of the promotional, 

transactional, and advertising issues surrounding each of these 

platforms. 

We have other providers here today. We have different technology platforms. How we make that seamless is still a challenge. 

But I think, as Mike said a moment ago, the technologies probably 

exist. And if there is a will for all of the providers, the CE manufacturers, the content providers to work together with the FCC, I 

think we can achieve them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. McSlarrow. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McSlarrow follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
17 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 21 here 76572A.005

TESTIMONY OF KYLE McSLARROW 

PRESIDENT AND CEO 

NA TIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION 

on 

The National Broadband Plan: Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices 

before the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

April 29, 2010 
18 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 22 here 76572A.006

TESTIMONY OF KYLE McSLARROW 

PRESIDENT & CEO, NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

ASSOCIATION 

Good morning, Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Stearns, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, My name is Kyle McSlarrow and I am the President and Chief Executive Officer 

oflhe National Cable & Telecommunications Association. Thank you for inviting me today to 

testify on the competitive availability of navigation devices. 

As you know, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last week opened two 

proceedings seeking commcnt on video device issues and how best to implement Section 629, 

the navigation device provisions of the Communications Act. First, the FCC adopted a Notice 

of Inquiry ("NO I") seeking commcnt on a "long-term" solution that will enable consumers to 

purchase "smart video" devices that will work with all multichannel video programming 

distributor's ("MVPD's") systems. Second, the Commission adopted a shorter term Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM") seeking comment on proposals to improve the current cablecentric CableCARD regime while the longer term approach it proposed in the NOI is explored, 

The cable industry fully supports the Commission's examination of these issues and its eHorts to 

make the goals of Section 629 a reality. 

As the FCC recognizes in the "Smart Device" NOI, the video landscape has 

grown dramatically more competitive since the navigation device requirement was enacted as 

part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Four of the ten largest MVPDs now are either 

direct broadcast satellite (DBS) or telephone companies who collectively serve almost 40 million 

customers and whose share continues to grow. There is also now a flourishing and rapidlygrowing market for Internet-enabled devices that offer consumers an ever-widening array of 
19 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 23 here 76572A.007

choices for information, entertainment and communications applications a development that is 

itself a testamcnt. in part, to the massive investment by our industry to innovate and bring highspeed broadband Internet to more than 90 percent of American households. 

The cable industry is committed to providing video content to consumers where and 

when they want it, on all possible consumer devices, and for those devices to be innovative 

platforms for new applications. We want consumers to be able to buy video devices at retail and 

to know that cable contcnt can be among their video sources. Indeed, NCTA and its members 

have been in the forefront of promoting innovation in consumer v ideo devices for over tvv 0 

decades. The original analog set-top box, in use for decades, gave way to the first generation of 

digital boxes in the 19905. which have rapidly yielded to advanced set-top boxes that today 

deliver HD television, caJler ID on the TV, video-on-demand, and DVR capability. Our tru2way 

agreement with major consumer electronics (CE) manufacturers enables CE manufacturers to 

build retail digital cable ready devices that can access all of cable's video services. including 

video-on-demand and other interactive services - without the need for a set-lop box. And cable 

operators themselves are deploying a new generation of cable set-top boxes that use tru2way 

middlcware capable of running applications which provide the opportunity to unleash innovation 

by third party applications developers on a new national platform. 

The cable industry stands ready to explore new cross-industry approaches to develop a 

fully competitive and innovative retail video device marketplace. Indeed, we have called for a 

broad FCC proceeding on this set of issues for the last three years in order to accomplish this 

goaJ. That's why we applaud the FCC's adoption of the NOI, particularly its overarching 

recognition that all video providers must be part of the solution. In order to aid the FCC's and 

this Subcommittee's consideration of these issues, we proposed earlier this year a series of 

2 
20 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 24 here 76572A.008

consumer principles governing video devices that we think can and should serve as the 

foundation for new. consumer-driven approaches to addressing the future of retail navigation 

devices. We are pleased that the Commission. in its NO), references our consumer principles 

and concludes that they are "Iargely supportive of[the Commission's] objectives in launching 

this proceeding." 

Promoting Competition and Choice in Video Devices 

The consumer principles NCT A submitted to the FCC outlined a foundation for 

Commission and inter-industry efforts to support innovation and consumer access to video 

services, from any source: 

I. Consumers should have the option to purchase video devices at retail that can 

access their multichannel provider's video services without a set-top box supplied 

by that provider. 

2. Consumers should also have the option to purchase video devices at retail that can 

access any multichannel provider's video services through an interface solution 

offered by that provider. 

3. Consumers should have the option to access video content from the Internet 

through their multichannel provider's video devices and retail video devices. 

4. Consumers should have the option to purchase video devices at retail that can 

search for video content across multiple content sources, including content from 

their multichannel provider, the Internet, or other sources. 

5. Consumers should have the option to easily and securely move video content 

bel\veen and among devices in their homes. 

6. Consumers should be assured the benefits of continuous innovation and variety in 

video products, devices, and services provided by multichannel providers and at 

retail. 

7. To maximize consumer benefits and to ensure competitive neutrality in a highly 

dynamic marketplace, these principles should be embraced by all video providers. 

implemented flexibly to accommodate different network architectures and diverse 

3 
21 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 25 here 76572A.009

equipment options, and, to the maximum extent possible, serve as the basis for 

private sector solutions, not government technology mandates. 

We believe that these principles should be implemented in ways that facilitate the 

deployment of different video device options in response to dynamic and varying consumer 

demands, rather than requiring that all devices include the same features for all consumers. They 

should allow for the possibility of ever more innovative devices, such as set-back boxes, 

gateways, and network interface units, while preserving alternative possibilities such as 

innovation in the network or the cloud which may lead to fewer or simpler devices in the home. 

None of us can predict which is the better or more likely path to success and it is quite possible 

that multiple paths will emerge. The Commission's NOt explores these very issues. And. while 

asking a number of questions about one such device (v,hich it calls ·'AllVid"). the NOI also 

seeks comment on "alternative proposals to the AIiVid concept that could lead to the 

implementation ofa competitive market solution for smart video devices:' In particular. the NOI 

asks "whether the movement of functions away from navigation devices and into the cloud or 

network might represent a viable alternative." These arc the right questions to ask. 

It is clear that any new policy must apply to all MVPDs, across all technical platforms. 

We are very pleased that this principle was recognized not only by the FCC in its NOI, but also 

is a view shared by the consumer electronics (CE) industry, TiVo, and Public Knowledge, 

among others. 

All MVPDs are covered by Section 629 and must playa part in a Section 629 solution, as 

traditional cable companies and Vcrizon have done with respect to the CableCARD regime. In a 

market where nearly 40% of pay television subscribers obtain services from DBS or the 

telephone companies, a cable-centric solution cannot succeed. Consumers are unlikely to pay a 

premium to own a retail navigation device that won't work with DBS providers and most teleo 

4 
22 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 26 here 76572A.010

TV providers without a set-top box from the provider. If there is to be sufficient room for 

innovation and competition in networks and services, then there should be room for all MVPDs 

to innovate and compete. 

Thus, if the government concludes that pal1icular devices or pm1icular rules are 

appropriate to promote competition or to serve other goals. then it only makes sense for those 

requirements to apply to all MVPDs - as the FCC's NO] proposes. For instance, the ohjective of 

enabling consumers to take their devices with them when they move from one community to 

another is valid regardless of which video provider the customer uses. Likewise, portability is 

incomplete if a consumer who is not moving. but simply wants to change video service 

providers, can't use his or her current video device on another provider's network. 

Second, rigid technology mandates are most likely to be inappropriate for an industry as 

dynamic as the video distribution business. By way of example. the FCC's 2003 plug-and-play 

rules even specify the output connectors on the back of operator-supplied set-top boxesincluding one port, the 1394 or "firewire" connection which consumers use rarely, if ever. The 

FCC recognizes this issue in its just-released CableCARD NPRM, and proposes giving cable 

operators greater tlexibility to choose appropriate outputs to include in their set-top boxes. 

Technology mandates run the very real risk of imposing solutions that are outdated the moment 

they go into effect and of undennining the very innovation we all seek to achieve. Even if 

technical mandates were imposed on all MVPDs, such an approach would also risk picking 

winners and losers in this marketplace since Xbox. Roku, Vudu. and other devices sold by nonMVPDs would presumably not be subject to any such regulations and thus would continue to be 

able to innovate and update their products without the need to seek government permission. In 

5 
23 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 27 here 76572A.011

this regard, as I noted above, we are pleased that the FCC has sought comment on alternative 

"market-driven" solutions and standards to achieve the goals ofScction 629. 

Third. one cannot "solve" this set of problems by visiting burdens and responsibilities on 

one part of the video ecosystem alone. This is why collaboration is so important. For example. 

it is clear that the creation of a robust market for new video devices requires some assurance that 

CE manufacturers will actually build and retailers will willingly stock such devices. That is 

more likely to be achieved through industry collaboration with appropriate government oversight 

rather than through government mandates. Otherwise. if there are to be government mandates 

imposed on MVPDs to help a retail market develop. complemcntary mandates on consumer 

electronics manufacturers and retailers would be necessary to assure that those devices are 

'·commerciallyavailable." 

We strongly support technology innovation around the video distribution platform. 

including potentially using the tclevision as a means of accessing the Internet and content 

available on tbe Internet. Indeed, there is no shortage of devices that can put Internet content on 

the TV today. Internet-enabled DTVs, laptops. Blu-Ray players, Xbox, PlayStation. Roku, 

Apple, TiVo, Boxee. Slingbox, and Vudu devices are just the tip of the iceberg. We have always 

invited retail devices to include not only the ability to access cable content, but also the ability to 

access the Internet. Along these lines, the consumer principles we propose suggest extending the 

capability to access the Internet to our own leased set-top boxes. giving consumers the option to 

access Internet video content through our set-top boxes as well as through video dcvices 

purchased at retail. 

We also are very interested in exploring tbe concepts advanced by the Commission in its 

NOI with respect to making cable content more readily available to consumers who use retail 

6 
24 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 28 here 76572A.012

devices. FCC Chairman Genachowski described one such concept that I believe captures the 

goal very well: "Just as a shopping mall presents customers with numerous retail outlets, smart 

video devices would offer viewers a single window into pay TV content and Internet content - as 

well as content that a viewer has already bought or archived:' In this regard. we could envision a 

retail video device having access not only to a Netflix, Amazon.com or other video providers' 

"store" in the video content shopping mall, but also to the local cable operator's store. each of 

which could be included in a mall-like directory that would help customers navigate the different 

stores for video content. Customers could access each video "store" via icons. or through a 

similar process. in the retail device's display. So. for example, if a customer clicked on the icon 

for content provided by the local cable operator, the cable content would be presented just as if 

the customer had accessed it using a set-top box supplied by the customer's local cable operator. 

We believe that industry and government collaboration in this area is necessary and \\e 

fully intend to work with the FCC and other stakeholders to shape technology solutions that 

benefit consumers, As Commissioner Copps said in his statement accompanying the ~Ol. in 

order for the Commission's goals to be met, "the Commission and the private sector are going to 

need to roll up their sleeves, work together and reach consensus on what will spur innovation and 

competition and what will improve the consumer experience." We believe the marketplace 

changes of just the last few years afford all stakeholders an opportunity to collaborate in new and 

innovative ways. But, in an era of such rapid technological change. the FCC's consideration of 

video device issues should be governed by the principle of regulatory humility. We respectfully 

urge the FCC and Congress to consider the consllmer principles we've proposed. which we 

believe offer an appropriate framework for policymakers as well as inter-industry efforts. 

7 
25 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 29 here 76572A.013

"Fixing" the CableCARD Regime 

The FCes CableCARD ]\;PRM correctly recognizes that the cable-centric CablcCARD 

regime has not fulfilled the goals of section 629. despite the best efforts of the Commission. the 

CE industry and the cable industry, and that it may well be outdated. The NPRM identifies 

several issues with the CableCARD regime for \,hich it proposes short-term "fixes" "until the 

sliccessor solution [applicable to all MVPDs] becomes effective:' We think the NPRM's 

targeted examination of certain CableCARD issues asks the right questions and we remain 

willing to continue working with our colleagues in the CE industry to resolve any lingering 

CableCARD implementation issues. We understand that we have an obligation to continue to 

work hard to retine and improve the consumer experience with the use ofCab!cCARDs. 

However. we firmly believe that imposing any additional significant or burdensome 

CableCARD-related requirements would be misdirected and would simply repeat the mistakes of 

the past at a time when we have an opportunity to shape a more innovative and collaborative 

future. The most useful path, as the NOI recognizes. is to focus our efforts on new solutions 

while correcting past mistakes as needed. Thus. we are paliicularly pleased that. as part of the 

CablcCARD NPRM, the Commission proposes to increase our industry's ability to deploy lowcost high-definition Digital Terminal Adapters ("'DTAs") by providing an exemption to the 

costly "integration ban" for such devices. Low-cost DTAs are a vital tool for all cable systems to 

recapture bandwidth that can be used to provide consumers with faster broadband speeds. more 

HD channels, and other digital services. 

The reasons for the limited success of the CableCARD regime are easily 

identitlcd. First. it was a requirement imposed only on cable operators, in an era when an 

increasing proportion of consumers bought their multichannel video services from a provider 

8 
26 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 30 here 76572A.014

other than a cable operator. Nonetheless. unlike our DBS competitors and most of our tcleo 

competitors. cable companies alone have worked to meet the challenges of Section 629 

(including the CableCARD regime) throughout a period of tumultuous technological and market 

change. Cable operators and major CE manufacturers negotiated the landmark "plug and play" 

agreement for "unidirectional" devices (UDCPs). which was largely incorporated into the FCC's 

rules. Then without regulatory compulsion- the cable and CE industries created informal 

mcchanisms to effectively handlc the field issues that inevitably arose with the rollout of new 

and complex technology. The cable industry also developed MultiStream CableCARDs ("MCARDs") for use in retail products. enabling consumers to watch and record different channels 

simultaneously using the same CableCARD. 

There were also the usual start-up issues that accompany the introduction of new 

technology. exacerbated in this instance because the cable and CE industries \vere both 

introducing products with new technologies that had to be married in the consumer's home - the 

operator-provided card and the retail plug-and-play device. 

Nonetheless, there are now almost 20 million operator-provided, CableCARD-equipped 

set-top boxes, which are supplied by a growing number of competitive consumer electronics 

manufacturers, including Pace, Motorola. Cisco. Evolution Broadband, Sam sung, Panasonic, and 

TiVo. However, fewer than 490,000 CableCARDs have been deployed for use in retail 

CableCARD-enabled devices. despite the expenditure by cable operators ofovcr a billion dollars 

in additional costs outfitting their own set-top boxes with CableCARDs. This amounts to more 

than $30 of cable operator "common reliance" insurance for every $1 of Cable CARDs in retail 

devices a cost no other MVPD (other than Verizon) was forced to bear under the FCC's 

"integration ban:' These costs have been an unnecessary tax on cable consumers. 

9 
27 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 31 here 76572A.015

The fact that consumers have shown little interest in buying these retail devices may 

simply reilect the reality that the option of leasing devices is preferable to them. That's not 

surprising, since leased devices are available at government regulated "cost-plus" rates (or rates 

\vhich are otherwise kept low in markets v,here effective competition exists) and can be 

upgraded when the next model is released rather than having to purchase a device at retail and 

assuming the risk of obsolescence. 

Customers may also choose to lease their box rather than buy it because leasing makes it 

easier for consumers to switch from cable to satellite to teleo video services and back again, 

especially since today's retail CableCARD devices are not supported by the DBS providers or 

many telephone-company MVPDs. A CableCARD-enabled digital cable ready DTV will work 

without an operator-supplied set-top box across all cable operators' footprints. but the consumer 

would need a different and unique set-top box to enable that DTV to work at all with DISH, 

DirecTV, or AT&T. 

No less a source than COl1SlIlIIer Reports has recommended that consumers should lease 

rather than buy their DVR set-top boxes and the Commission itself seeks comment in its NOI on 

''whether consumers prefer to lease at government-regulated 'cost-plus' rates. \\hether 

consumers wish to avoid the risk [of] obsolescence of navigation devices, and whether the 

inability to 'port' a retail navigation device when he or she changes MVPDs limits the 

attractiveness of the retail option." 

Finally, the FCC also correctly recognizes another reason why a retail market has not 

developed: "one-way" retail devices were brought to market just as consumer interest was 

growing in on-demand and other interactive cable services, which those devices did not provide. 

With respect to that issue. Mr. Chairman, with your personal encouragement, and that of other 

10 
28 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 32 here 76572A.016

policymakers, cable worked with major CE manufacturers and digital television makers to 

develop the Java-based tru2way solution as the national digital cable-ready "plug-and-play" 

standard. With this approach, consumers could go into a retail store, buy a flat screen tru2way 

high-definition television. take it home and access any cable service - including interactive 

services yet to be created - without having to use a set- top box and with just one remote 

control. Major cable operators reached agreement on this approach with consumer electronics 

manufacturers including Sony, Panasonic. Sam sung. LG Electronics, Funai (known in the United 

States under the brand names Philips, Magnavox. Sylvania, and Emerson); set-top makers ADB 

and Digeo, and chip manufacturer Intel. Numerous other CE and IT companies have signed 

agreements to develop and produce tru2way devices and applications even though they are not 

parties to the tru2way MOU. In addition, CableLabs has held a number of productive tru2way 

Developers' Conferences which provide a forum where cable operators. consumer electronics 

equipment manufacturers. content providers. application developers. and other stakeholders can 

learn about and exchange intormation on the tru2way initiative. 

While tru2way will address consllmer concerns about service limitations of"one-way" 

CableCARD-enabled devices, the only real "fix" to the CableCARD regime is to explore holY 

best to ensure that consumers can be provided the option of purchasing devices at retail that 

access and work with allmultichanl1el video platforms. That is the subject of the FCC's NOI. 

and it has our strong support. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear. We look forward to working with you on 

these challenging issues. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

II 
29 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Zinn. And please pull that microphone very 

close. 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW ZINN 

Mr. ZINN. As far as it can go. Chairman Boucher and Ranking 

Member Stearns, thank you for inviting TiVo to discuss device competition and the National Broadband Plan. Consumers love TiVo 

products because they combine the ability to find, record, and play 

cable programming with the ability to find, record, and play 

broadband programming, Netflix, Amazon, Blockbuster, YouTube 

all in one easy-to-use user interface. 

TiVo puts the consumer in charge of its own viewing schedule 

while respecting the rights and concerns of copyright holders. 

TiVo’s ideas have been copied, though never equaled, by video service providers in their own lease boxes, yet TiVo boxes have never 

been placed on an equal footing with leased boxes in terms of access to programming, pricing, installation and support. 

The CableCARD was designed by the cable industry itself so that 

the consumer need only turn on the product, read two sets of numbers on the screen, and call them into his local cable operator. 

These are being supported this way in a few systems around the 

country. But by and large, installation and support have been woefully inadequate. And even when CableCARD-reliant devices have 

been supported, cable operators have been making channels unavailable to consumers who rely on these devices. 

Let me show you what I am talking about in terms of access to 

cable programming. Here is a Web site showing a channel lineup 

for a cable operator system in Utica, New York. 

[next slide] 

You can clear the Web site and then you can search by programming package. 

So the next slide shows that we have searched by the programming package entitled ‘‘Not Available on CableCARD.’’ Funny title 

for a programming package that contains over 200 channels that 

are not available on CableCARD according to this Web site. 

[Slide shown.] 

The next slide shows what is in that package. Well, there are a 

lot of movie channels that consumers are being told are not available on CableCARD. 

[Slide shown.] 

No hablo espanol on CableCARD. 

[Slide shown.] 

HD movies. If you buy an HD box or you have an HDTV, you 

kind of want HD movies. Not available on CableCARD. 

[Slide shown.] 

Anybody like sports? Not available on CableCARD. 

[Slide shown.] 

Twenty-one of the top 25 top-rated channels in HD are not available on CableCARD according to the Web site. 

My point is not to pick on a particular cable operator cable system only to graphically show the unequal competitive situation for 

retail set-top boxes. The fact is most of these channels may be 

accessed by TiVo boxes using a tuning adapter. Yet there is no 

mention of that here, no mention of digital, no mention of tuning 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
30 

adapter. All the consumer sees is ‘‘not available on CableCARD,’’ 

and most consumers would look at that and say, I am not going 

to buy a retail box. 

Is it any wonder why more people lease boxes than buy retail 

boxes when confronted with this situation? 

And even if you get past the programming issue, then you have 

pricing issues: How much is a CableCARD, do I have to pay for a 

lease box and a CableCARD? And then there are installation issues 

which are now legendary. Faulty cards; untrained installers; installers who fail to bring CableCARDs who are not familiar with 

them; multiple truckloads to do a signal install, and so on. 

Fortunately, Congress anticipated the video service providers 

might foreclose device competition and innovation. The Consumer 

Electronics Availability Act of 1995 directed the FCC to assure in 

its regulations the commercial availability of competitive devices 

for multichannel video programming providers. This subcommittee’s bill became section 629; in 1996, the Telecommunications Act. 

After many years of intermittent and inconsistent efforts to foster video device competition, Chairman Genachowski proposes to 

really advance the ball here in two proceedings. First is a rulemaking to allow products such as TiVos, which rely on 

CableCARDs, to work on cable systems free of technical handicap. 

And the second is notice of inquiry to consider a gateway for competitive and innovative products to operate on cable, satellite, telephone video systems as much as personal computers and portable 

products, operable Wi-Fi connections today. 

My earlier slides show that cable operators have recently made 

ordinary subscription channels unavailable to competitive products, 

even though our customers must continue to pay for them. Cable 

operators do this with a switch digital technique in which certain 

of these channels must now be electronically requested from the 

head end. TiVo devices have the capability to send the necessary 

requests to the head end using broadband. 

But TiVo’s license from cable labs does not allow our products to 

be configured to make these simple requests, and cable systems 

currently are not set up to receive them. A regime in which a cable 

subscriber is required to use an operator-provided set-top box to receive a significant amount of programming is the very antithesis of 

what a competitive set-top box policy is designed to achieve. 

We are encouraged that the NCTA has recognized this in its 

statement of principles to Chairman Genachowski, and we look forward to working with cable to address this critical issue. We applaud Chairman Genachowski for proposing these solutions. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, CableCARD is not hard to fix and 

we are not asking for much. We are asking for installation support, 

which is in the law. We are asking for pricing transparency and 

nondiscrimination, and we are asking for upstream signaling so 

that retail boxes have regular cable programming without an operator-provided set-top box. All of these are what was supposed to be 

provided by the plug-and-play agreement that was signed into law 

in 2003. Thank you. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Zinn. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zinn follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
31 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 36 here 76572A.017

Statement of 

Matthew Zinn 

Senior Vice President, General Counsel 

Secretary & Chief Privacy Officer 

TiVo Inc. 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Communications, Teclmology, and the Internet 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

The National Broadband Plan: 

Competitive Availability Of Navigation Devices 

April 29, 2010 

Chairman Boucher and Ranking Member Steams, thank you for inviting TiVo to 

discuss device competition and the National Broadband Plan. TiVo became a leading 

innovator in digital devices by combining advanced digital storage teclmology with an 

interactive electronic program guide. TiVo's customers love our products and 

consistently rank our user interface and software above that of any and all competitors. 

Unfortunately, our customers have been unable to reap the full benefit and usc of our 

products, and the benefits of further innovation by us or by competitors. This is why an 

important element of the FCC's National Broadband Plan focuses on devices. 

As the FCC has concluded, the dearth of competition in the products that tune and 

store video programming is bad for device innovation, bad for service innovation, and is 

harmful to continued growth in broadband services. TiVo's experience isjust one 

example of how our regulatory system has shielded service operators from device 

competition and is short-changing consumers. 

TiVo Digital Video Recorders combine a consumer-friendly user interface with 

the ability to store, index, and recall video programming. To a far greater extent than the 
32 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 37 here 76572A.018

analog VCRs that preceded it, a TiVo product can put a consumer in charge of his or her 

own viewing schedule, while respecting the rights and concerns of copyright owners and 

programming distributors. TiVo's concept and execution have been copied, though never 

equaled, in the video service providers' leased DVRs. Yet TiVo boxes have never had a 

fair chance to compete with leased boxes in terms of access to programming, pricing, 

installation or support. As a result. leased set -top boxes have thrived, while independent 

competitors have fallen by the wayside. The leased set-box remains the product that 

consumers love to hate. 

Set-top boxes get in the way of consumer enjoyment of video content because 

multichannel video programming is sold under electronic lock and key - far beyond what 

is required to protect intellectual property rights. On the Internet, it is simple to buy a 

program, or to transfer funds securely, through standard communication protocols and 

encryption techniques. Multichannel video programming services, however, use unique 

and non-standard systems of encryption and user authentication that reside in their 

"headend." These vary from system to system. They also have non-standard protocols 

for requesting interactive services, such as Video On Demand. So if a consumer were to 

purchase a TiVo product designed to work specifically and directly on the Arlington. V A, 

Comcast system, and were then to move across the street to a Fairfax County 

neighborhood served by Cox, her TiVo product would not display or record most Cox 

programming. Even if she leased a Cox set-top box just to deliver the signal to her TiVo 

box. the Cox set-top would not provide a high definition program through an interface 

that permits and supports recording, or supports the display of our own guide. 

2 
33 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 38 here 76572A.019

The Congress wisely antieipated this problem almost two decades ago and took 

steps to try to avoid it. In 1994, Congressman Markey chaired a hearing in which he, and 

you, Mr. Chairman, expressed eoneern that in the digital era the servicc opcrator's set-top 

box would operate as a "gatekeeper" rather than a "gateway" for the "information 

superhighway.,,1 The next year, the Republican Chairman of this Committee and the 

Ranking Member of this Subcommittee introduced the Bliley-Markey bill, the Consumer 

Electronics Availability Aet of 1995. This measure directed the FCC to assure, in its 

regulations, the commercial availability of competitive devices, for multichannel video 

programming networks, from vendors not affiliated with the service provider. With your 

help, Mr. Chairman, this bill became Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 

1996. As Section 629 of the Communications Act, this Committee's bipartisan initiative 

now underpins a key element of the National Broadband Plan. 

In implementing Section 629, the FCC focused first on the cable industry, whose 

1100 local franchises used diverse means of securing their networks. A joint engineering 

committee of the Consumer Electronics Association and the cable industry proposed to 

solve the problem of secure system aecess by putting only the decryption and 

authentication circuitry on a separate card ultimately known as a CableCARD. These 

cards would be made available by the local cable operator, and would plug into 

eompctitive deviees through a nationally standard interfaee. (So, if our TiVo eustomer 

moved from Arlington to Fairfax, she would simply return her Comcast card and get one 

from Cox.) 

I National Communications Infrastructure (Part 2): Hearing on H.R. 3626 and H.R, 3636 Before the 

Subcomm, on Telecommunications and Finance of the H. Comm, on Energy and Commerce. I03,d Congo at 

386 (Feb, I, 1994). 

3 
34 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 39 here 76572A.020

As the CableCARO specifications were being finalized, however, the motion 

picture industry pointed out that the interface to devices would be "in the clear;' henee 

vulnerable to copying. So the industries added an additional layer of encryption and 

authentication. between the card and the device, using a technology called "OF ASr that 

was acquired by Cable Labs. This meant that every competitive device would havc to be 

licensed by Cable Labs, the consortium owned by the operators who lease the set-top 

boxes with which these products would compete. 

In 1998, the FCC, wary from its experience with deregulation of consumer 

devices in the telephone industry, said that the only purposes for which operators could 

impose restrictions on licensees would be to avoid "harm to the network" or "theft of 

service:' Not surprisingly, CableLabs took a much broader view of what restrictions and 

requirements this allowed them to impose than did the prospectivc competitors. For five 

years there was no competitive entry. Finally. under pressure from the Senate Judiciary 

antitrust subcommittee and members of this Committee, the FCC encouraged the cable 

and consumer electronics industries to work out a compromise "OFAST" license and a 

new set of proposed "Plug & Play" regulations. Finally, CablcCARO-capable products 

came to market in 2004. 

The essentials of the "Plug & Play regime were as follows: 

• Cable operators with systems of a ccrtain capacity became obligated to offer and 

give specific technical support to CableCARDs 

• Products that relied on CableCAROs would be allowed to record and share 

content in the home with other devices, subject to OFAST license "compliance 

and robustness" technical requirements that protected content from unauthorized 

redistribution. 

• To avoid abuse of these technical restrictions, home recording and viewing could 

not be limited unreasonably by the content owner or distributor. 

4 
35 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 40 here 76572A.021

• These Plug & Play products would receive all linear cable channels (e.g.. HBO) 

to which a consumer subscribed, but could not order services (such as Video On 

Demand) interactively with the cable headend. This capacity would be addressed 

in further industry negotiations.2 The idea of the Plug & Play agreement was to 

provide certainty to manufacturers and consumers that they could purchase retail 

products that received all of the linear cable channels provided by the cable 

operator." 

Cable Industry Failures To Support CableCARD-Reliant Products 

With the exception of TiVo. the Plug & Play products introduced in 2004 are no 

longer available to consumers. Despite significant investments by many consumer 

electronics manufacturers, the cable industry has no enthusiasm for these products 

because they could not be used to buy on-demand services. Installation of a CableC ARD 

took several multi-hour visits by untrained field people, and headends were not set up to 

support consistent operation of Cable CARD products.4 Rather than a{eature that could 

be promoted by manufacturers and retailers, the CableCARD interface became an added 

expense and a consumer headache. One by one - except for TiVo's and one or two small 

DVR competitors competitive products dependent on CabieCARDs disappeared. A 

, These negotiations failed to produce any further inter-industry agreement. 

., See In the lv/aller olImpleme!1latfon afSection 304 ollhe Telecommunications Act o(l996. Commercial 

Availabilily olNavigation Devices. CS Dkt. No. 97-80. Letter fiom Carl E. Vogel. President and CEO. 

Charter Communications, et al. to Michael K. Powell. Chairman. FCC (Dec. 19.2002) ("Cable/CE 

Letter"), Memorandum of understanding Among Cable MSOs and Consumer Electronics Manufacturers 

("MOl)") (signed by Charter Communications, Inc., Comcast Cable Communications, Inc, Cox 

Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable, CSC Holdings. Inc., Insight Communications Company. L.P., 

Cable One, Inc., AdvancelNewhouse Communications, Hitachi America, Ltd., JVC Americas Corp , 

Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America. Inc, Matsushita Electric Corp. of America Panasonic), Philips 

Consumer Electronics North America, Pioneer North America, Inc., Runco International. Inc, Samsung 

Electronics Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, Sony Electronics, Inc, Thomson. Toshiba 

America Consumer Electronics, Inc., Yamaha Electronics Corporation, USA. and Zenith Electronics 

Corporation), at Section 3.4 (Cable Services Accessed). 

, CableCARD non-support has been extensively documented in the FCC record and has been cited by both 

the FCC and the courts. See. e.g.. In the Alaller of Implementation of Section 30'; olthe 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices, CS Dkt. No. 97-80, 

Second Report and Order ~ 39 & n.162 ("'lar. 17,2005); Charter Communications v. FCC, 440 FJd 31,40 

·44 & n.IO (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

5 
36 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 41 here 76572A.022

TiVo customer must have a working CableCARD to receive HD programs; if not. the 

TiVo box will be returned. 

In the last few years we have faced a new obstacle. Cable operators have begun 

to move programming away from Plug & Play reception despite the promise that Plug & 

Play devices would receive all linear cable channels. To save bandwidth, they use a 

"switched digital video" ("SDV') technique in which a growing number of channels must 

be requested from the headend in order to be available on a local node. 5 Not surprisingly, 

lack of access to the same popular channels as are available on a free leased box can 

make it extremely difficult, ifnot impossible, to convince consumers to purchase a retail 

CableCARD set-top box. 

What TiVo Has Done 

Despite these roadblocks, TiVo has done it's best to innovate, but only in the 

areas that Cable Labs and the cable operators have allowed. For example, since TiVo 

products are denied access to cable Video On Demand services, TiVo has incorporated a 

broadband connection to enable the delivery of "On Demand" broadband programming 

services, such as Netflix, Amazon, Blockbuster, YouTube, and many others that are not 

available on operator-supplied set-top boxes. Last month. TiVo introduced its Premiere 

series of products with enhanced search. interactive and consumer control features. 

However, TiVo is unable to innovate around the lack of access to linear cable channels 

(such as A&E in HD or Fox News Network in lID) delivered using SDV that subscribers 

receive on leased boxes. 

What The FCC Now Proposes 

5 Once the channel is available on the local node. other homes on the same node that are authorized to see it 

can also view it. providing that their device can detect that it is being transmitted on a particular frequency. 

So this is strictly a bandwidth conservation measure for existing channels - 170/ a new or interactive service. 

6 
37 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 42 here 76572A.023

Last week, the FCC acted to promote video innovation and consumer choice in 

two areas as recommended in the ;-.,rational Broadband Plan: 

Notice of Inquiry. The Commission issued a notice of inquiry to explore the potential 

for allowing any consumer electronics manufacturer to otfer smart set top video boxes at 

retail that can be used w'ith the services of any multichannel video programming 

distributor (MVPD) by using a special purpose adapter (the "AllVid" solution) 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking with rules designed to improve the operation of the CableCARD regime until 

the AllVid solution becomes a reality. 

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which is directed only to cable systems, 

would attempt to eliminate some of the more egregious regulatory and license obstacles 

to consumers taking full advantage of the capabilities ofTiVo's present CableCARDreliant products. We endorse this initiative as essential to a competitive market and the 

objectives of Section 629. 

The Notice of Inquiry, directed to all MVPD systems, is aimed at establishing a 

true "level playing field" by extending the Plug & Play model to true interactive 

communication with the network rather than mere connection to the network. It would 

do this by requiring each system operator to make available to subscribing homes an 

adapter whose sole(zmction would be to act as a demarcation point between the 

operator's proprietary network elements and the home network. The adapter would 

communicate with the MVPD service, performing the tuning and security decryption 

functions that may be specitic to a particular MVPD, while the smart video device would 

perform navigation functions, including presentation of programming guides and search 

functionality. 

How The "CableCARD" Rulemaking Will Remedy Failures In Cable Industry 

Support 

7 
38 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 43 here 76572A.024

CableCARD issues are the number one driver of customer serviee calls for new 

TiVo retail boxes. In eonneetion with the launch ofTiVo's new CableCARD product 

last month, the most common issues inelude cable operators not supporting multi-stream 

CableCARDs and operators being unable to activate CableCARDs properly. These 

problems ought not continue to exist six years after the introduction of CableCARDs and 

several years after common reliance required eable operators to use CableCARDs in their 

own leased boxes. 

According to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission will address these 

failures: 

(I) Switched digital video. What Commission action is needed to ensure eonsumers 

of Plug & Play devices have access to linear channels delivered using "switched 

video" technology that otherwise are becoming unavailable to subscribers owning 

Plug & Play devices without use of a cable set-top box. 

(2) Transparent pricing. Operators will have to charge equivalent and transparent 

prices for provision and support of CableCARDs and reliant devices. 6 

(3) Standardized CableCARD installation policies and procedures. Cable 

operators would need to allow subscribers to install Cable CARDs in retail 

devices if the cable operator allows its subscribers to self-install leased boxes and 

technicians would be required to arrive with at least thc number of Cable CARDs 

requested by the customer. 

(4) Multi-stream CableCARDs. Cable operators would be required to offcr multistrcam CableCARDs to their subscribers using retail sct-top boxes. 

(5) Product certification and licensing by CableLabs. CableLabs, which is owned 

by the cable operators who lease devices, remains in charge of licensing and 

certifying competing products. The certification process for retail CableCARD 

devices would be streamlined and accelerated. 

6 As is stated in the National Broadband Plan at 52 ('the bundling of leased boxes into package prices by 

operators"), the core issue is whether device discounts, subsidies, and incentives, as offered to subscribers 

who lease devices, will continue to be offered when that subscriber obtains a retail device instead. TiVo 

interprets this NPRM provision as addressing this issue as well as the relative pricing of the CableCARDs 

themselves. 

8 
39 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 44 here 76572A.025

TiVo strongly supports these rule changes and will submit our detail cd comments 

and suggestions to the Commission. 

Consumer Choice Cannot Wait 

While TiVo supports the exploration of new concepts to better effectuate the 

intent of Congress in creating true consumcr choice of video devices. arriving at a new 

solution applicable to all MVPDs may well take longer than anticipated. Meanwhile, 

CableCARD remains the only mechanism providing consumers a choice in set-top boxes. 

It is absolutely critical that the Commission not prematurely abandon CableCARDs in 

favor of undefined potential future solutions which have not yet attracted the necessary 

support from the service providers that would be responsible for their implementation. 

There are hundreds of thousands of consumers using CableCARDs today and 

many more who \ve expect will purchase retail video devices once the Commission 

addresses some of the issues that have plagued CableCARDs to date. The tools and 

technology exist today to provide those consumers with real choice provided they ean 

get access to core cable programming services delivered via switchcd digital and other 

IP-based technologies \vithout the use of an operator-supplied set-top box.! We are 

pleased that the NCTA recently has expressed supp0l1 for a retail market in which a 

customer would not have to rely on equipment from the operator to access the operator's 

video programming services and seeking to facilitate private sector solutions with limited 

7 TiVo DVRs access video content such as Netflix, Amazon.com, Blockbuster. and YouTube today 

delivered over an I P connection using IP upstream signaling to request the programming. There is no 

technical limitation on TiVo DVRs using broadband for upstream signaling to request programming 

delivered via switched digita I technology. 

9 
40 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 45 here 76572A.026

government mandates to the extent possible. 8 We look forward to working with the cable 

industry in quickly making this vision a reality for our mutual customers. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation for your efforts and 

those of your colleagues. You were right in 1995 to endorse Section 629, and you were 

right last month when you urged Chairman Genachowski to move ahead with his plans to 

enforce this provision. I look forward to working with this Committee, with the FCC, 

and with our private sector and public interest colleagues to achieve ultimate success for 

your initiative and for your tireless efforts. 

8 See Letter fi'om Kyle McSlalTow. NCTA. to Chairman Julius Genachowski. FCC, dated March 12,2010. 

10 
41 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Shanks. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC SHANKS 

Mr. SHANKS. Good morning. I am Eric Shanks, Executive Vice 

President of Entertainment at DirecTV. And thank you for allowing 

me to testify today. 

To foster innovation and increase broadband adoption, the FCC 

is considering a plan to stimulate a retail market for smart video 

devices. While DirecTV supports the goal of innovation and 

broadband adoption, we have concerns with this proposal. Specifically the FCC may require cable, satellite, and other video providers to develop an all-video adapter whose sole function is to connect its service with third-party devices. The manufacturers of 

these devices could strip out our service and replace it with their 

own. 

This government intervention is both unnecessary and harmful. 

Innovation and the convergence of broadband in TV are prevalent 

in the market today and growing. DirecTV is driving this effort by 

including Ethernet ports on all of our HD boxes and access to some 

of the most popular Internet sites like Flicker, Facebook and Twitter. By ignoring what is occurring in the market today, the proposal will have the opposite effect of what it intends. It could give 

cable a clear competitive advantage. It would place our innovative 

services at risk and result in increased costs and inferior customer 

service. 

We built our business nearly 20 years ago through innovation. 

And it is imperative that we do even more today to remain competitive. In the last 15 months alone, we have downloaded 76 new 

features to our set-top box. We do more than simply transmit plain 

vanilla programming. The features and services you are about to 

see create the video experience that is unique to DirecTV. 

Please roll the video. Should I go on and come back to the video 

later? There we go. I assure you we do give our customers audio. 

Ms. ESHOO. Just not Congress, huh? 

[Video played.] 

Mr. SHANKS. So everything you just saw resides in our set-top 

box. Under the proposal, however, we cannot ensure that these features or any future innovations would work with third-party boxes. 

Thus consumers are left with three choices: one, pay for a new box 

from DirecTV; two, settle for an incomplete service that they expect 

to get; or three, switch to a provider whose technology is more suited to an all-video device. Although we don’t advocate an all-video 

adapter mandate for any service provider, cable’s two-way architecture allows it to place its intelligence in the head end rather than 

the home. This means its services will still work with third-party 

devices. This, however, is not an option for satellite. Thus the proposal would skew the competitive landscape towards cable, undermining the government’s longstanding efforts to stimulate competition. 

In addition, allowing third parties to strip out our services that 

you just saw and develop their own user interface will diminish the 

industry-leading customer service they expect from DirecTV. 

When DirecTV first launched, there were hundreds of models of 

set-top boxes, each with their own controls and features. And 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
42 

frankly, we struggled to help subscribers handle even the most 

basic functions when they called us, such as setting parental controls or turning on closed captioning. 

This proposal would turn back the clock, leaving no clear lines 

of responsibility for customer service. We receive 140 million customer phone calls a year, including a great number regarding the 

set-top box. Who will take these calls and, more importantly, who 

will solve the customers’ problems? 

We believe there are better ways for the FCC to achieve its goals 

without the potential harm to innovation, competition and customer service. 

And, fortunately, the FCC is willing to consider alternatives. 

DirecTV is already implementing one such solution. The RVU Alliance is a consortium of over two dozen distributors and manufacturers that have developed an open standard for in-home networking capabilities that allow subscribers to watch content anywhere in the home on any device, whether from any paid TV provider or the Internet. With RVU, everyone is free to innovate and 

provide unique services which accomplishes our shared goals. It 

fosters innovations, integrates broadband and video, eliminates the 

need for multiple set-top boxes, and creates devices that can work 

with different video providers. 

DirecTV is eager to work with the FCC and with Congress to 

achieve the shared goals of innovation and broadband adoption. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Shanks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shanks follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
43 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 49 here 76572A.027

Written Testimony of 

Erie Shanks 

Executive Vice President, Entertainment, DIRECTV, Inc. 

Before the 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet 

April 29,2010 

My name is Eric Shanks. I am Executive Vice President, Entertainment at 

DIRECTV. Thank you for allowing me to testify this morning. For the last several 

months, the FCC has been hard at work on a plan aimed at expanding the deployment of 

broadband technology and increasing innovation in the marketplace. In particular, we 

applaud the FCC for recognizing thc role that video providers like DIRECTV are playing 

and will play in the effort. While DIRECTV supports the FCC's goals of increased 

itmovation and access to broadband, we have serious concerns with the way it proposes 

to achieve those goals. 

As part of its efforts, the FCC may require cable, satellite, and other providers of 

video services to develop an "All Video Adapter" that would connect the provider's 

service with third parties' "smart video devices." The FCC envisions the adapter to be 

small, inexpensive and with limited functionality. In addition, the proposal would allow 

third parties to disaggregate our service and replace it with their own. 

This one-size-fits all approach ignores the unique technologies that distinguish 

satellite from cable and would adversely impact consumers, stifle innovation and 

undermine longstanding efforts to stimulate competition. More importantly, we do not 

believe government intervention is necessary. Innovation and the convergence of 

broadband and television are prevalent in the market today and growing. DIRECTV is 

helping to drive this effort. consistent with its history of providing new, innovative 
44 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 50 here 76572A.028

features. including remote DVR technology, Common Sense Media ratings. and NFL 

Super Fan. In addition to the Boxees and the Play Station 3s that allow consumers to 

access content on the Internet today. DIRECTV consumers can access Internet radio, 

Flickr and YouTube through our system directly; and will soon have available to them a 

media center that allows content to be moved around their home. and broadband and 

video content to be integrated on their televisions. 

The FCC proposal, as drafted, fails to recognize what is occun-ing in the market 

today and will have the opposite effect of what is intended. First, it would place 

DIRECTV's innovative services at risk; second, it would skew the competitive landscape 

in favor of cable; and third, it would result in increased costs and inferior service for the 

consumer. 

While we have serious concerns about the current proposal, we applaud the FCC 

for its willingness to explore alternatives that would achieve its policy goals. We believe 

the RVU Alliance is one such alternative underway that encourages innovation from both 

the CE manufacturers and the video distributors. This consortium of over two dozen 

distributors and manufacturers is developing an open standard technology that will enable 

consumer electronics manufacturers to integrate broadband and video content on 

televisions and to move all of that content throughout the home using a single media 

center, thus eliminating the need for multiple set-top boxes. let alone a government 

designed set top box. 

2 
45 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 51 here 76572A.029

1. THE ALL VIDEO ADAPTER PROCEEDING RISKS HARMING IN:-.iOVATION, 

CO!\1PETITlON, AND CONSUMERS 

A. The FCC Proposal Places DIRECTV's Innovative Services at Risk 

At DIRECTV. we have built our business through innovation. When we started 

almost twenty years ago, we had to compete by offering a better television experienccbctter picture quality, more channels, and better customer service. We were the first to 

deliver all-digital channels, the first to usc MPEG-4 compression. and the first to 

introduce a substantial slate ofHD programming. We have won eight Emmys for our 

technology, including our interactive NFL Sunday Ticket and other sports features. 

Simply put, DIRECTV is where it is today because it recognized that the market would 

reward better and more innovative service. 

It is imperative we do even more today to remain competitive. DIRECTV 

launched a remote DVR application on computers and smart phones and introduced TV 

apps; we're incorporating Common Sense Media ratings in our guide, introducing 3-D 

television, and allowing consumers to access sites on the Internet, such as Y ouTubc and 

Flickr. In the last fifteen months alone. we have downloaded 76 new features to our settop boxes. We do more than simply transmit "plain vanilla" programming; these features 

and services create the video experience that is unique to DIRECTV. This is how we 

compete. The video we will show at the hearing provides just a glimpse of what our 

subscribers have come to expect from their DIRECTV service. 

All of our intelligence and the features I have just described reside in the set top 

box. The box is the brains of our operation. Unlike cable, there is no head end in the 

ground that can store all the "smarts" needed to ensure these services work. Our headend 

3 
46 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 52 here 76572A.030

is essentially in the set-top box in the home. The FCes proposal, however. would limit 

our ability to put intelligence and storage capacity into an All Video Adapter. By doing 

so, it substantially harms our ability to innovate. Even if we could continue to place our 

intelligent boxes behind the adapter, those consumers who purchased third party "smart 

devices" would not have access to the same advanced features or functionality they 

expected when they chose DIRECTV. 

Under the FCes proposal, moreover, innovation would be stalled if we had to 

wait to offer features until enough third-party box manufacturers chose to upgrade their 

boxes. For example, DIRECTV is currently able to roll out 3D television in a matter of 

months by downloading software to nearly all of our set-top boxes. Under the FCC s 

proposal, we would have to wait until third-party manufacturers decided to upgrade their 

devices--or try to justify the expense of 3D rollout to a fraction of our subscriber base 

while leaving the others behind. 

The bottom line is that the FCC proposal would ultimately weaken the 

performance incentives created by the market, unraveling the lynchpin ofDIRECTV's 

success while, as discussed below, inadvertently rev,arding the cable industry. 

B. The FCC Proposal Would Skew the Competitive Landscape in Favor 

ofCablc 

The proposal would harm satellite and skew the competitive playing field in favor 

of the incumbent cable industry. The FCC's plan intends to treat cable, satellite, and 

teleo providers equitably, thus encouraging competition. But because diHerent video 

providers use different technologies, a one-size-fits-allmandate would actually harm 

competition. To be clear, we are not advocating an All Video Adapter mandate for cable 

4 
47 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 53 here 76572A.031

or satellite or any other provider. All distributors should bc free to optimize their 

network and services as they see tit. Because of our one-way architecture, however, the 

FCC's approach would be more damaging to satellite. 

Unlike satellite, cable has a two-way architecture, in which information flows 

back and forth from the headend to the set-top box. This means a cable operator can 

placc its functionality (DVR, Video on Demand, programming guide, etc.) either in its 

set-top boxes or at the headend, depending upon what it believes best optimizes its 

service. Thus, if the FCC were to mandate the All Video Adaptor, cable operators could 

respond by placing features in the head end, passing all of the functionality through the 

adapter to its own boxes and downstream "smart devices." This is not an option for 

satellite. As explained above, our headend is in the home, residing in the DIRECTV settop box. This means that third-party devices would have access to all cable features, but 

not all satellite features. If someone invests hundreds of dollars in equipment to tlnd out 

later that it doesn't work with DIRECTV, but does work with cable, she would have a 

significant incentive to switch to cable. 

In the absence of allowing for the flexibility required to maintain competitive 

parity. the FCC proposal would set back the federal goverrunent's longstanding efforts to 

stimulate competition between cable and satellite industries. In so doing, it will revive 

old problems (competition) even as it tries to solve new ones (broadband access). 

5 
48 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 54 here 76572A.032

C. The FCC Proposal Would Harm Consumers Through Increased 

Costs and Inferior Service 

The FCC believes that an All Video Adapter mandate would foster innovation and 

lead to a better television experience. While we laud this goal, we think the proposal, 

instead, runs the risk of leading to higher prices and inferior service. 

As mentioned above. unless we can put our intelligence in the adaptor/set-top 

box, there is no guarantee that DIRECTV subscribers would be able to receive all the 

ilmovative features they expected when they chose DIRECTV. The subscriber is left 

with three choices: One, he pays more for another set-top box from DIRECTV to get the 

services he expected; two, he settles for an inferior service: or three, he switches 

providers. 

Furthermore, there is no way to ensure that consumers can make a truly informed 

decision when purchasing third-pat1y equipment. Even if the smart device manufacturer 

disclosed which services a subscriber can or cannot receive today, there is no way to 

adequately advise consumers that their devices may not work with future innovations. 

For example, a consumer who purchased a smart device last year would not have known 

that, this year, she wouldn't receive 3D television, Common Sense Media ratings, or be 

able to access YouTube videos through our system. 

In addition, allowing third party devices to disaggregate our service and develop 

their OW11 user experience will diminish the industry leading customer service they expect 

from DIRECTV. For example, our history has shown us that DIRECTV cannot 

adequately help our subscribers navigate through multiple third-party television 

interfaces. When we first launched service, there were hundreds of models of set-top 

6 
49 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 55 here 76572A.033

boxes. each with its own controls and features. We struggled to help subscribers handle 

even the most basic functions. such as setting their parental controls or turning on closed 

captioning. Today. even though six manufacturers make our boxes. all ofthcl11 offer a 

consistent expericnce. Our customer service is indisputably better. 

Undcr the FCC's proposal. we also would lose clear lines of responsibility for 

customer service. We receive 140 million phone calls per year on a wide range of issues. 

including set-top box functionality and features. Who will take these calls when 

eustomers have problems with the smart device? 

Today. a customer with a problem knovvs (0 call us. Indeed, sometimes the 

subscriber doesn't even have to call us. Our boxes can now perform self-diagnostic 

testing to detern1ine the nature of a problem. Very soon, they will automatically relay 

that information to DIRECTV, telling customer service representatives what is wrong so 

(hat subscribers don't have to do so. By contrast, eustomers with third-party smart 

devices would not know who to call. The customer would be left to figure out whether a 

particular problem concerned DIRECTV's network. the All Video Adapter, the "smaI1" 

device. or the television. Ifthe problem turned out to be anything other than our network 

we could no longer help. And the smart-device and television manufacturers would not 

likely help. Unlike us, they have no ongoing relationship with their customers. 

II. THE FCC's GOALS CAN BE ACHIEVEO THROl'GH INNOVATIVE 

AOVANCE:vtENTS CllRRENTLY HAPPENING IN THE MARKETPLACE 

The FCC has expressed a willingness to look at alternative proposals that would 

achieve their goals, and we believe that one look at what is happening in the industry 

would show that their vision is coming to fruition. In initiating this proceeding, the FCC 

7 
50 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 56 here 76572A.034

seeks to (i) toster innovation, (ii) allow viewers to access Internet content on their 

televisions: (iii) eliminate the need for a set-top box for every television set; and (iv) 

allow consumers to access different video providers from the same device. These 

developments are occurring in the marketplace today, without government intervention. 

DIRECTV has already deployed millions of set-top boxes with Ethernet ports that accept 

Internet connections, and is beginning to deploy in-home networking capabilities that will 

allow its subscribers to seamlessly move content. whether from its video provider or from 

the Internet, around the home. 

To accomplish this, DIRECTV is working with the RVU Alliance to make this 

technology available to its subscribers by the end Oflhis year. The RVU Alliance is a 

consortium of over two dozen distributors and manufacturers, including Samsung, Cisco, 

DIRECTV, and Verizon that is developing an open standard technology that will enable 

consumer electronics manufacturers both to integrate broadband and video content on 

televisions and to move all of that content throughout the home using a single media 

center, thus eliminating the need for multiple set-top boxes. This technology also will 

allow television and consumer electronics manufacturers to innovate in their own 

offerings, without disrupting the services offered by companies like ours. 

With RVlJ, when you turn on your television, you can be presented with a menu 

of video choices from various sources-for example, Netflix. Hulu, Google, and 

DIRECTV (or Comcast, or Verizon, etc. )-presented in a manner of the manufacturer's 

choosing. If you click on Neftlix, you will get the Netflix's experience. If you click on 

DIRECTV, you \vill get the DIRECTV experience. If you click on Verizon, you will get 

the Verizon experience. 

8 
51 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 57 here 76572A.035

Chairman Genachowski made an apt comparison in his statement: "Just as a 

shopping mall presents customers with numerous retail outlets, smart video devices 

would offer viewers a single window into pay TV content and Internet content - as well 

as content that a vicwer has already bought or archived:' RVU is tbat vision realized. 

The smart device manufacturer can determinc what serviccs are available in their 

"shopping mall;' but once you enter thc DIRECTV store, DIRECTV can continue to 

provide its subscribers with the award-winning innovativc services and customer service 

that they have come to expect from DIRECTV. 

* * * 

DIRECTV is eager to work with the FCC and Congress to achieve the shared 

goals of innovation and broadband adoption. Thank you once again for allowing me to 

testify. I would be happy to take any of your questions. 

9 
52 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Feld. 

STATEMENT OF HAROLD FELD 

Mr. FELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stearns, 

and members of the subcommittee. My name is Harold Feld and 

I am Legal Director for Public Knowledge. My organization, joined 

by other consumer and public interest groups as the FCC is part 

of the National Broadband Plan to adopt a universal gateway for 

set-top boxes and video devices. Two of those organizations, Consumers Union and Media Access Project, joined us in the written 

testimony submitted today, describing how a universal video gateway referred to in the FCC proceeding initiated last week is a setback box, or AllVid device, will benefit consumers and further our 

National Broadband Plan. We believe that such a device applied 

across all MVPD platforms would promote innovation in the device 

and service market, enhance competition among MVPDs and help 

spur adoption of broadband by increasing the value proposition of 

broadband to consumers. 

We also believe that the circumstances in today’s market, as 

MVPDs are increasingly offering triple-play packages of video and 

voice and data, cable is undergoing a digital convergence and the 

ferment of VC interest in making online video available on every 

screen creates a perfect opportunity for the FCC to reboot its implementation of section 629. 

As the FCC recognized in the recent notice of inquiry, the proposed AllVid approach could do for this generation of devices what 

the FCC’s historic Carterfone decision and subsequent rulemaking 

did for the phone network, saving consumers monthly rental fees, 

opening up a new universe of equipment choices and, finally, creating the opportunity for unforeseen innovations such as the 

modem and the dial-up Internet. 

I want to make three points. Choice and competition in video devices is good policy. As everyone knows, you can attach any device 

and run any application on your broadband connection at home. 

Whether it is an Apple, a Dell, an HP or an energy-saving device 

that lets me adjust my home thermostat remotely, I can attach it 

to my home broadband connection. My mother and my mother-inlaw can have video calls with what I believe is their favorite grandson, and it doesn’t matter that I have FiOS; my folks have RCN 

and my in-laws use Comcast. The equipment all functions the 

same. 

This didn’t happen by accident or because providers wisely arrived at this result through self-regulation. It happened because 

more than 40 years ago, the FCC announced a decision called 

Carterfone, that customers had a right to attach devices to the 

phone network. By setting a few simple ground rules, the FCC created the world of today in which consumers enjoy devices and services impossible to have imagined when it decided Carterfone. 

With this experience in mind, Congress first in 1992 and then in 

1996 required the FCC to create such ground rules for video devices. Nearly 15 years later, consumers are still waiting. 

My second point. The FCC’s attempt to implement the law 

through CableCARD has not worked. CableCARD has not lived up 

to its promise. Others here can speak more directly to why 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
53 

CableCARD failed in that promise. In general, we believe, as the 

name CableCARD implies, the FCC simply delegated too much to 

the cable industry. CableCARD works for cable. It does not plugand-play for consumers. It does not work with U–Verse or other 

IPTV. It is not required on DBS. And it does not play well with 

FiOS. 

The FCC further undercut CableCARD adoption by granting 

countless waivers, including waivers for so-called low-cost, lowfunctionality boxes that undercut adoption. 

As a first step, the FCC needs to fix CableCARD. Many consumers and competitive devices rely on it, but we need a fresh approach that is easy to use for consumers and promotes competition 

and innovation. 

My third point. The video gateway is the best solution to implement the law, promote consumer choice, and promote broadband. 

All MVPD should provide consumers with a simple device that 

communicates with the MVPD network and makes MVPD services 

available to third-party devices. This will bridge the gap between 

closed MVPD networks and open home media ecosystems. It will 

open up all subscription TV networks to device competition. It is 

a win for consumers, for consumer electronics and retail industries, 

and ultimately for the MVPD industry as well. 

As we saw with Carterfone, opening up the phone network for 

new devices created new opportunities for the telephone network 

providers to sell new services that they would never have developed without device entrepreneurs stimulating demand. 

Only the video gateway model will help fulfill the goals of the 

National Broadband Plan in promoting adoption as well as just deployment. As Mr. Doyle observed earlier, between 85 percent and 

90 percent of Americans rely on some form of MVPD, and almost 

all Americans have a television set, but only 60 percent of Americans have broadband in their homes. 

By approaching broadband adoption through the media device 

most familiar to all Americans, their television set, we can help 

bridge the digital divide and make broadband for all Americans a 

reality. Thank you. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Feld. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Feld follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
54 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 61 here 76572A.036

Testimony of Harold Feld 

Legal Director, Public Knowledge 

Before the 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the 

Internet 

Hearing On: 

"The National Broadband Plan: Competitive Availability Of 

Navigation Devices" 

Washington, DC 

April 29, 2010 
55 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 62 here 76572A.037

Testimony of Harold Feld' 

Legal Director, Public Knowledge 

On behalf of 

Public Knowledge 

Media Access Project 

Consumers Union 

Before the 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet 

Hearing on 

"The National Broadband Plan: Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices" 

April 29, 2010 

Introduction 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stearns, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to speak today. My name is Harold Feld. I am the Legal 

Director of Public Knowledge, a nonprofit organization that seeks to promote 

consumer choice in broadband, video programming, and other communications 

services. I am also testifying on behalf of Media Access Project and Consumers 

Union. Media Access Project is a non-profit law firm and advocacy organization that 

works to advance freedom of expression, independent media, and universal access 

to communications platforms, and Consumers Union is an expert, independent, 

nonprofit organization whose mission is to work for a fair, just, and safe 

marketplace for all consumers and to empower consumers to protect themselves. 

We are here to discuss how the FCC should implement a law Congress passed 

nearly 15 years ago to promote competition in the market for set-top boxes . 

• I would like to thank Public Knowledge Staff Attorney John Bergmayer for his assistance in 

the preparation of this testimony. 
56 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 63 here 76572A.038

Congress showed prescience and vision when it passed this law-codified at Section 

629 ofthe Communications Act-as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. 1 

Congress correctly predicted that the old analog cable box would grow into a 

sophisticated two-way "navigation device" allowing consumers on multiple 

platforms to chose among competing video services and new services emerging 

broadband communications would make possible. Section 629 therefore instructed 

the FCC in no uncertain terms to create rules that would make it possible for a 

consumer to purchase devices for these new services in a competitive consumer 

electronics market. 

Unfortunately, despite many proceedings, rulemakings, and false starts, the 

FCC failed to create the competitive market in video devices Congress directed. 

Poorly constructed rules, undercut by numerous exceptions and waivers, left 

consumers with no easily implemented solution for video devices. As a result. the 

vast majority of subscribers to MVPDs continue to lease set-top boxes from their 

provider and cannot easily take advantage of competitive choices for such services 

as digital video recorders (DVRs). Often, consumers lease underwhelming set-top 

boxes for years on at rates that more than cover the cost of the eqUipment, and are 

charged a fee if they fail to return the devices when moving or changing providersdevices that, when returned, are thrown in a recycling bin. This poor consumer 

experience indicates a lack of a properly functioning market. 

To its credit, the FCC recently recognized that despite Congress' express 

directive in Section 629 and the FCC's efforts, competition and innovation have 

1 Telecommunications Act of 1996. Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. codified at 47 U.S.C. § 549 

(Section 629 of the Communications Act). 

2 
57 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 64 here 76572A.039

failed to emerge in the set-top box market, and this has deprived consumers of the 

lower prices and superior service that comes with a genuinely competitive market. 2 

In the National Broadband Plan, the FCC determined that promoting competition in 

video devices would spur the adoption and use of broadband by making it easy for 

innovators to break down the wall between television and the Internet. Fulfilling the 

mandate of Congress to promote competition in video devices will help America 

achieve the goal of universal broadband, which has become the general-purpose 

communications technology of our time. 

As part of the National Broadband Plan proceeding, Public Knowledge asked 

the FCC to adopt a "video gateway" approach. Under this proposal, all subscription 

TV providers would provide their consumers with a simple device that allows 

competitive devices to use subscription TV services. This approach is the best way 

to implement the law and help fulfill the goals of the National Broadband Plan. 

Choice in Video Devices Is Good for Consumers-and It's the Law 

Choice in video devices is a long-standing Congressional policy. As cable 

television became more complex, subscribers increasingly needed specialized 

equipment, rented from the cable company, to access certain features. This not only 

required consumers to pay regular monthly fees they could avoid were equipment 

available for purchase, it also increasingly interfered with the market for VCRs and 

other consumer devices. In response to this, in 1992, Congress found that: 

if these problems are allowed to persist, consumers will be less likely to 

purchase, and electronics equipment manufacturers will be less likely to 

2 National Broadband Plan § 4.2. 

3 
58 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 65 here 76572A.040

develop, manufacture, or offer for sale, television receivers and video 

cassette recorders with new and innovative features and functions .... 3 

The 1992 law directed the FCC to start working on a standard to promote 

compatibility between cable systems and analog consumer electronics. The FCC 

quickly implemented a set of standards that proved remarkably successful. In less 

than two years after passage of the 1992 Act, consumers began to see the 

emergence of "cable ready" televisions and devices like VCRs. Manufacturers, able to 

use stable technical standards, began to create combined versions of devices. 

Consumers benefitted twice over. They saved themselves monthly rental fees and 

enjoyed the convenience of integrated televisions and devices. Related industries, 

such as the movie industry, likewise benefited from the broader availability of VCRs 

and DVD players. 

Building on this success, Congress directed the FCC to create the same 

competitive market for the next generation of consumer devices. In a proviSion 

garnering bipartisan support, Congress ordered the FCC to: 

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 .... 4 

The shift from "cable" to "multichannel video programming distributors" (MVPDs) 

reflected another success of the 1992 Cable Act-the emergence of competitors to 

3 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 

102-385,106 Stat. 1460, codified at 47 USc. § 544a (Section 624A of the 

Communications Act). 

4 Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, codified at 47 

U.S.c. § 549 (Section 629 of the Communications Act). 

4 
59 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 66 here 76572A.041

cable such as Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS). Congress therefore directed the FCC 

not only to adopt the technical standards needed to assure a robust video device 

ecosystem, but to follow through and make sure that the standards had the desired 

effect of promoting competition and choice in video devices and the future world of 

two-way digital services. 

CableCARD. the FCC's Attempt to Implement the Law. Has Fallen Short 

Unfortunately, the FCC was not nearly as successful in implementing Section 

629 as it had been implementing the rules for analog devices. Years of rule making 

produced only a temporary solution called "CableCARD," a small card that plugs in 

to any compatible television, DVR, or PC that allows these devices to access one-way 

cable services. The FCC did not settle on final rules for CableCARD until 2005, and 

did not require cable operators to include CableCARD with all new set-top boxes 

until 2007.5 The FCC further undercut the value of Cable CARD by exempting cable's 

primary competitor, DBS, from application of the rules. 

Because CableCARD was only intended to be a temporary solution, it is 

incapable of sending signals upstream back to the cable company-the kind of 

signaling necessary to allow it to access video-on-demand, other two-way services, 

and increasing numbers of "switched digital" channels. The "solutions" that have 

been presented to allow CableCARD devices to access these abilities have been 

unsatisfactory. In particular, "solutions" that require a consumer installing a 

CableCARD-compliant device to continue to use a cable-supplied set-top box simply 

worsens the problem Congress intended Section 629 to solve. 

5 See Commercial Availability a/Navigation Devices, 20 F.C.C.R. 6794 (2005) 

5 
60 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 67 here 76572A.042

Cable CARD Is Too Cable-centric To Succeed 

Plans to replace CableCARD with a more modern solution that uses 

downloaded software. rather than a physical card, have gone nowhere-in part 

because the cable industry has dominated the process. The FCC permitted 

CableLabs. the standard setting body for the cable industry, to set standards without 

regard to the requirements of other technologies. Tru2way. the two-way system 

promoted by the cable industry and blessed by the FCC, has proven extremely 

difficult for providers using alternate technologies such as FiOS or IPTV. Worse, the 

licensing terms for tru2way require that a developer of compatible consumer 

electronic devices or services must abide by numerous restrictions set by 

incumbents to prevent the development of competing services and impose needless 

expense these developers must pass on to consumers. 

With initiatives like tru2way. the cable industry gave up limited control of 

the hardware in a subscriber's living room, but maintained control of the software 

subscribers need to access the services they pay for. We have seen that mobile 

devices with operating systems and software controlled by companies like Apple. 

Palm. and Coogle offer a superior experience to locked-down handsets where all 

software and updates have to be carrier-approved. Similarly. innovative. featurerich, easy-to-use video devices are far more likely to be supplied by outsiders than 

by cable companies, whose devices and interfaces are widely-used but little-loved. 

CableCARD has not even lived up to the limited goal of promoting 

competition in devices that only access one-way services. Only CableLabs can certify 

a device as compatible with CableCARD, and the lack of competition for certification 

6 
61 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 68 here 76572A.043

has made the process time consuming and expensive. Consequently, few compatible 

devices are available at retail. 

Rather than fix the problem by developing new standards and opening the 

standards process, the FCC attempted to bolster CableCARD by requiring that cable 

companies use it for their own equipment. The FCC then undermined this effort by 

granting frequent waivers. Manufacturers of compliant devices cannot achieve the 

economies of scale needed to make them competitive on price. Nor do they have a 

dependable platform on which to innovate, discouraging investment. Where 

developers have tried to develop devices that comply with the rules, the ability to 

obtain cheaper non-compliant devices by waiver has effectively destroyed the 

market for compliant devices.6 

But even when a manufacturer makes it through the obstacle course, 

overcomes the cost, and brings a CableCARD compliant product to market, problems 

have not ended. CableCARD customers often cannot access the full range of services 

for which they pay for a variety of reasons. Customers have reported difficulty 

obtaining CableCARDs from their cable companies if they have boxes that came 

without CableCARD included. Even customers with CableCARDs included with the 

cable box must install the cards themselves, and those that do often find getting 

them to work difficult. The difficulties are not only logistical or technical. 

Anticompetitive price arrangements-such as charging all customers for rented set6 See Letter of Harold Feld, Legal Director, Public Knowledge, to Marlene Dortch, 

December 8, 2009, CSR-7902-Z; CS Docket No. 97-80, available at 

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov /ecfs/document/view?id=702035 1973, and attached 

declaration of James D. Gee, Jr., Managing Member of lPCO, LLC, available at 

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov /ecfs/document/view?id=702035 1975. 

7 
62 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 69 here 76572A.044

top boxes, whether or not they use them-are unfair to CableCARD users and 

discourage adoption. While cable operators have made efforts to address these 

complaints, problems persist; further thwarting Congress' intent to develop an 

independent consumer market in video devices to the detriment of consumers and 

the economy as a whole. 

Finally, even if the current system worked well, it is limited because it only 

applies to cable systems. This, at least, is one area where Public Knowledge and the 

cable industry agree. Consumer fairness and regulatory parity both demand an allMVPD solution. Today, satellite TV is more popular than ever, but is exempt from 

the CableCARD rules, and Verizon and AT&T offer subscription TV services that are 

incompatible with CableCARD. A system that only applies to cable does not meet the 

law's requirements, singles out cable on the basis of outdated market analyses, and 

does not make switching MVPDs much easier. Consumers should be able to use the 

same equipment with any MVPD-not just with any cable company-and should be 

able to easily switch from cable to satellite or another MVPD, and vice versa. From a 

consumer perspective, being locked into "cable" is the same as being locked into 

Comcast, Cox, or whatever the local cable company is. 

These problems continue, five years after the FCC adopted the CableCARD 

rules, because the FCC has not been successful in its responsibility to implement the 

law as required by Congress. Too often in this process the FCC has viewed the cable 

industry as a "client" and "stakeholder" to be serviced, rather than putting the 

interests of consumers first. For the FCC to implement the law properly, and create 

8 
63 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 70 here 76572A.045

the innovative and competitive market Congress intended consumers to enjoy, the 

FCC must take a new approach focusing on the interests of MVPD subscribers. 

The Video Gateway Is the Fresh Approach That Is Needed to Promote 

Competition and Implement the Law 

The FCC should take quick action to fix the CableCARD system, which many 

consumers and competitive devices still rely on. At the same time, a fresh approach 

that applies to all MVPDs, as the law requires, is needed. That's why Public 

Knowledge, Media Access Project, Consumers Union and others submitted a petition 

to the FCC last December asking it to adopt a "video gateway" model, which will 

finally open up all subscription TV networks. You can use a Mac or a PC on your 

broadband connection without having to ask your ISP for permission, and you don't 

have to buy a different computer depending on whether you have cable, DSL, or 

fiber broadband. This is exactly the model that should be replicated with 

subscription TV: you should be able to buy devices at retail that "just work," 

whatever kind of service you have. 

Under the gateway proposal. the FCC would require that all MVPDs provide 

consumers with a simple device that communicates with the MVPD network and 

makes MVPD services available in a standard way to third-party devices-bridging 

the gap between closed and proprietary MVPD networks and the open and 

competitive home media ecosystem. 

The gateway approach will provide a single, nationwide, technology-neutral 

standard that allows competitive devices to work with any MVPD. Without this, the 

market will continue to be segmented into different technology islands, and new 

entrants will find it difficult to achieve economies of scale and market their 

9 
64 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 71 here 76572A.046

products. A standard needs to be a standard. There can be no exceptions or waivers 

and proposals that call for a "gateway functionality" to be built into set-top boxes 

create an opportunity for the same kind of discriminatory pricing that has 

suppressed the competitive marketplace in video devices for many years. All of the 

services an MVPO offers need to be available through the gateway. Consumers 

should not have to care about how their video gets to them, and services they pay 

for shouldn't only be available to people who buy equipment from preferred 

suppliers. 

As the history of Section 629 shows, technology alone will not promote 

competition. Our petition asks the FCC to rethink its non-technical regulations as 

well. For years, cable companies have mixed equipment and service charges in a 

way that makes it hard for outsiders to compete. The FCC must not allow this 

practice to continue, as a competitive market can only exist where consumers have 

the information they need to make informed choices and where MVPOs cannot take 

unfair advantage of their position in the consumer's home. In addition, the FCC 

must commit itself to developing a speedy complaint process and swift enforcement 

of the rules it adopts. Without these additional rule changes and institutional 

changes, the proposed gateway will simply become the next CableCARD, 

undermined by second-class service and third-class support. 

The video gateway is the best and lowest cost way to achieve 

standardization. It only requires that there be a single standard for accessing 

services on the different kinds of MVPO networks-the networks themselves will 

not require significant upgrades to support it. Satellite, wireless, OSL, cable, and 

10 
65 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 72 here 76572A.047

fiber-to-the-home broadband networks are as different as can be. Different 

broadband providers can deploy different technologies and differentiate themselves 

through pricing, speed, bandwidth, and reliability. But because home broadband 

networking technologies are standardized, people can walk into Best Buy and 

purchase compatible equipment without having to know the technical details of 

their equipment, and when they move they do not have to throw it all away. 

Implications For The Broader Digital Future 

Competition in Internet-delivered, or over-the-top, video is a model for what 

could happen with MVPD video if the barriers to entry are broken down. Dozens of 

companies offer services and create devices that work over broadband, offering 

innovative video products with easy-to-use interfaces. But relative to MVPDs, overthe-top video is still a niche product that is not a full substitute for MVPD 

programming. There are substantial differences between facilities-based MVPDs, 

which run wires into the home or have access to exclusive spectrum, and over-thetop services that compete on a level playing field with other over-the-top services. 

The existence of over-the-top video does not mean that the gateway is not needed, 

and over-the-top services should not need to support the gateway. At the same time, 

by allowing devices to mix over-the-top and MVPD services, the video gateway may 

help over-the-top services gain even more popularity, and this in turn might help 

some consumers who don't need, or don't want to pay for, the full lineup of MVPD 

programming to "cut the cord" and get all their video from the Internet. 

11 
66 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 73 here 76572A.048

There is a historical analogy, too. In 1968, the FCC issued its Carter/one 

ruling,7 making it clear that consumers have the right to use any non-harmful device 

on the telephone network. It followed this up with rules that established a standard 

interface that competitive devices could use to communicate with the telephone 

network. If it weren't for the FCC's Carter/one deciSion, it would have been 

impossible for consumers to use their telephone lines with modems to connect to 

the Internet without asking for special permission, and the digital revolution might 

have been delayed. 

Some people have said that the market is moving in this direction already. 

Respectfully, it is not. There are a lot of market initiatives going on right now, but 

there is no reason to think that any of them will give us what the video gateway will: 

A nationwide, all-MVPD solution that allows third-party device competition to 

thrive. That's the kind of solution that's needed to satisfy the law. No one is saying 

that MVPDs have to become "dumb pipes." In a video gateway system, they will 

continue to differentiate themselves with various pricing plans, bundles of channels, 

and video-on-demand and other enhanced services, just as they do today. 

Conclusion 

The gateway is the best way to allow competition to bring the same 

innovation to video devices that we've seen in other areas. It is the best way to 

bring the benefits of broadband to the living room, which wi!! help close the digital 

divide. Though I welcome debate on how the FCC can best make sure that 

consumers benefit from video device innovation, I reject the suggestion that years of 

7 Use a/the Carter/one Device in Message Toll Telephone Service, 13 FCC 2d 420 

(1968). 

12 
67 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 74 here 76572A.049

incumbent opposition and false starts mean that the FCC should disregard the law, 

forget competition, and hope that things will just work out in the end. I ask that all 

members of this subcommittee support the FCC as it takes necessary steps to 

promote consumer choice. 

Thankyou. 

13 
68 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Young. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID E. YOUNG 

Mr. YOUNG. Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Stearns and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you on what is obviously a very important 

issue to the chairman and this subcommittee, and has been for a 

long time. And the reason I believe it has been important is because this is an issue that you believe will drive competition, innovation, and consumer choice, which was certainly desperately required when first visited in 1992 and even again in 1996. 

But a lot has changed since then. It has been less than 5 years 

that Verizon first began offering FiOS TV service to the residents 

of Keller, Texas. And our 3 million subscriber base is small compared to our cable and satellite competitors, but we are playing big. 

And our innovations in the marketplace are forcing our larger competitors to respond to us. 

We have spent $23 billion building an all-fiber-to-the-home network that is capable of delivering the fastest broadband speed, and 

we have integrated the best of digital cable technology with Internet protocol to provide the best video experience possible. 

We have also introduced a number of service innovations. We 

were the first multiroom DVR. We were the first to provide a 

media manager service that allowed content from your PC, pictures, and music to be played through your television set. And we 

brought something to the market called widgets. And these widgets 

are applications that run on our set-top boxes. 

The first ones that we brought were traffic and weather. These 

are still very popular ones. But we were the first to bring Twitter 

and Facebook to the TV. And these turn television watching into 

a true social media experience. 

We have brought other ones like the NFL Red Zone that allows 

you to have an interactive multimedia sports experience rather 

than just watching programming on the TV. And just this week, we 

announced our YouTube and iheartradio apps, so that you can access all of the YouTube content or tune into hundreds of radio stations from across the country. And all of this is through the leased 

set-top boxes that our customers have today. 

But we are not the only ones doing this. You walk into any Best 

Buy or other big box store, you will find lots of innovative, smart 

video devices available. These are devices like the XBox or the Wii 

or the PlayStation. There are smart TVs. There are Blue Ray players. There are specialized boxes. Some call them Internet media 

adapters or net-top boxes like Apple PD or Roku and, of course, 

PCs, laptops, netbooks and tablet computers. All of these are able 

to access video content over the Internet and bring that experience 

to a customer’s television set. And so from these devices you can 

access Netflix, you can access YouTube, Amazon, Major League 

Baseball and more. 

So there is actually a robust retail navigation device market. The 

problem is that these same devices can’t be used to access your 

subscription TV program, and that is what we are all trying to figure out. That, of course, was the vision behind section 629. It is the 

vision behind the FCC’s notice of inquiry, and it is the reason that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
69 

we have been reaching out to our CE partners and trying to demonstrate proof-of-concept prototypes that demonstrate that their CE 

devices could work with our service without the need for a leased 

set-top box. It is also why Verizon has taken a leadership position 

in a number of standard setting bodies to help develop the standards to make all of this possible. 

We believe that this is achievable, but we have concerns about 

the specific proposal. We think that a gateway model imposed on 

all technologies is not necessarily the best way to go. It is certainly 

not the only way to go. And we think that it risks repeating some 

of the mistakes that were made in the past in the implementation 

of CableCARD. 

Mr. YOUNG. So what is the right way to achieve success? Any 

policy framework needs to recognize consumer choice. Some consumers prefer to lease a box and let somebody else buy it and 

maintain it and take care of it. Others would prefer to buy the box 

and own it themselves. And so, any solution should ensure both of 

those things. 

Any solution should encourage collaboration. Collaboration between the device makers and the service providers is important because it can improve the experience for the customer. It can help 

avoid problems by making sure that every detail is taken care of 

in advance. And if things do break, as they often do, it ensures that 

there is a way of getting that problem resolved without leaving the 

customer stuck in the middle with two parties pointing fingers at 

each other. 

We have to ensure that the MVPD experience is delivered to the 

customer the way the customer expects it to be delivered and that 

they are getting everything that they pay for. 

And then, finally, I think all of this goes to creating the right 

framework that will promote continued innovation, competition, 

and consumer choice without repeating the mistakes of the past. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
70 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 77 here 76572A.050

Prepared Testimony of David E. Young, 

Vice President - Federal Regulatory Affairs, Verizon 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet 

"The National Broadband Plan: 

Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices" 

Thursday, April 29, 2010 

Thank you Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Stearns, and Members of the 

Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today on the future of video navigation 

devices. 

I understand this Subcommittee has a long-standing interest in this topic. And I 

am pleased to testify today that competitive and technological developments 

have created an innovative and dynamic marketplace that is bringing forth new 

and exciting choices for consumers. For example, just this week Verizon 

launched our latest developments that bring Internet video content and hundreds 

of Internet radio stations to the FiOS TV experience. FiOS TV customers can 

now simply use their remote controls to search for and enjoy any YouTube video 

or iHeart Radio station - right on their TV screens. This is in addition to other 

online video-sharing sites such as blip.tv, Dailymotion and Veoh that were 

already available to FiOS TV customers. The addition of YouTube, the world's 

most popular online video community, will add thousands more daily videos to 

our service, and Verizon continues to work with other partners to increase and 

simplify consumers' access to content, including online content. 

In addition to Verizon's offering, consumers are able to purchase many different 

devices today to bring content from the Internet to their TVs. In the near future, 
71 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 78 here 76572A.051

they will be able to use devices like these to seamlessly navigate both Internet 

content and pay TV content regardless of who their video service provider is. 

This is the vision behind Section 629 of the Communications Act and the 

motivation for the FCC's recent notice of inquiry. While we look forward to 

participating in the FCC's notice of inquiry on how best to achieve this vision, we 

would ask the Commission and other policymakers not to impose a one-size-fitsall technology mandate. Although it represents one possible solution, the 

approach recently suggested by the FCC is not necessarily the only or best way 

to achieve the goal of a competitive market for video navigation devices. 

Differences in video services and in the capabilities of consumer electronics 

devices will call for a variety of approaches to allow for interoperability and 

continued innovation in the competitive video market. 

As you know, Verizon is a new entrant in the video marketplace. In fact, it's been 

less than 5 years since we first started offering FiOS TV to the residents of 

Keller, Texas. Since then, we have expanded the reach of FiOS TV to 14 states 

with service available to more than 12 million homes. While our customer base 

of about 3 million subscribers is small relative to our cable and satellite 

competitors, the innovations we are bringing to the market are forcing our 

competitors to respond. 

FiOS is unique in that we bring fiber all the way to the home. Over the fiber, we 

currently deliver FiOS Internet services with upstream speeds up to 25 megabits 

2 
72 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 79 here 76572A.052

per second and downstream speeds as fast as 50 megabits per second, and our 

network will let us increase those speeds well into the future to meet consumer 

demand. We install a wireless router in the home, creating an instant wi-fi local 

area network that allows customers to easily connect wi-fi enabled laptops, 

printers, game consoles, smartphones, iPads, television sets and any other wi-fi 

enabled consumer electronics device. 

When we created FiOS TV, we combined the best of digital cable technology 

with the emerging capabilities of Internet Protocol TV. On our fiber-to-the-home 

platform, we have one laser carrying the capacity of an 860 MHz cable system 

dedicated only to linear programming delivery, and two other lasers delivering 

upstream and downstream voice, Internet access and FiOS-TV interactive 

services (such as video-on-demand, the Interactive Media Guide, widgets, as 

well as search and other capabilities) using a high-speed, high capacity Internet 

Protocol data infrastructure. The result is an all-digital, crystal-clear TV service 

with over 130 high definition channels and hundreds of standard definition 

channels in each market with robust, two-way interactive capability. As a result, 

our set-top boxes are unique in that they combine traditional one-way cable 

technology with interactive IP capabilities making them powerful platforms that 

enable Verizon to innovate and increase the choices available to our customers. 

One innovation directly relevant to the topic at hand is widgets. At Verizon, 

widgets are applications that run on the set-top box. The first widgets that we 

3 
73 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 80 here 76572A.053

created were simple weather and traffic apps, and these are still extremely 

popular. Last year, we were the first video service provider to bring Facebook 

and Twitter to the TV. The Twitter widget allows you to see what other people 

are saying about the same program that you are all watching, turning TV viewing 

into a social media experience. The Facebook widget allows you to check on 

your friends' status, update your own, and view Facebook pictures on your big 

screen TV. And as noted above, Verizon continues to increase and simplify 

consumers' access to online content, including most recently from YouTube and 

iHeart Radio. 

As we continue to develop widgets with partners like these, we are also working 

on a software development kit that would allow a wide range of independent 

developers to create FiOS TV widgets that could be brought to consumers 

through our TV app store that we call the Widgets Bazaar. 

We are not alone in doing this. In fact many consumer electronic devices today -

laptops, netbooks, tablet computers, TVs, Blu-Ray players, DVRs and game 

consoles - have wi-fi connectivity which allows them to access Internet delivered 

content directly, completely by-passing the video provider's service. Our 

customers have these devices in their homes today and they are continuing to 

buy more. They are using them to access YouTube, Amazon Video, Netflix and 

other video content over the Internet. For example, my teenage son's XBOX 360 

is connected to the TV in our living room and we have started using it to watch 

4 
74 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 81 here 76572A.054

Netflix videos over the Internet. We can also watch Netflix on our PC, on my 

laptop, even on my new iPad. 

My family and many consumers would also like to be able to use these same 

devices to access subscription TV services. This is why Verizon has been 

actively working directly with a number of leading consumer electronics makers 

to demonstrate the feasibility of having their devices work as a FiOS TV 

navigation device and through various, open, standards-setting bodies to 

establish a suite of standards to make this possible. Of course, many consumers 

are likely to prefer more traditional methods of accessing video services - such 

as devices offered by their video providers - and providers should be able to 

meet that demand as well introducing innovative devices and offerings. 

As we move forward with the FCC's notice of inquiry, there are a few key points 

worth remembering: 

First. technology is moving quickly and is being driven by customers' desire to 

consume media and access information and social networking services on a 

wide variety of devices. None of us, no matter how smart, knows exactly how all 

of this will evolve. But what we do know - and the CableCARD experience is a 

cautionary tale for this point - is that prescriptive technology mandates and onesize-fits-all solutions will not serve consumers well. 

5 
75 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 82 here 76572A.055

Second, traditional multichannel video providers are competing today not only 

with each other but also with online video service providers, and that head-tohead competition is only going to increase. Walk in any big-box electronics store 

today and you will find a wide selection of IP-enabled devices - ranging from 

TVs, to game consoles, to "net-top" boxes - that allow consumers to access 

video and other content from the Web on a wide range of devices. Therefore, 

although providers should be able to offer consumers video services using the 

more traditional devices that many consumers are comfortable with, in order to 

remain competitive and keep pace with technology, video providers also have 

every incentive to ensure that their services are available on these devices that 

consumers clearly want to use. 

Third, the advanced FiOS TV services we are offering today aren't the cable 

services of 1996, or even 2006. The video services that consumers purchase 

today are no longer limited to a relatively simple package of linear video 

programming - the common experience until relatively recently. Instead, thanks 

to advances in technology and increased competition, consumers have access to 

an increasingly rich multimedia experience when they access their video 

providers' services. Whether it's selecting a movie from a vast library of 

offerings, choosing a camera angle for a sporting event, gaining real-time access 

to an Olympic medal count, or making a home-shopping purchase directly from 

the TV, consumers are empowered to do many things beyond passively watching 

prescheduled programming. These advances are also important from the 

6 
76 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 83 here 76572A.056

provider's perspective. Consumers are now able to select and purchase many 

offerings directly from their devices - rather than calling a customer-service 

representative and waiting on truck rolls. Similarly, customers are able to use 

these more advanced services to identify and address many technical or other 

concerns more conveniently, without time-consuming calls or visits. 

Fourth, while these new services are great for consumers, they are also far more 

complex than cable services of old. This complexity may be incompatible with 

the vision of a simple gateway device that enables all of a consumer's services. 

As consumers move from device to device to access their services, all of the key 

functionality and usability of our service must be maintained. When I go into my 

FiOS TV service, it should work the same with all of the functionality that I expect 

to find there regardless of what device I am using. 

But making this happen is no simple task. For example, today's digital 

subscription video content offerings include more than 100 software interfaces 

between the customer's navigation device and the provider's servers, for 

handling things like channel changing, requesting interactivity, launching and 

controlling video on demand streams, requesting metadata about the content to 

display on the screen, buying and provisioning access to content, or receiving 

electronic support. It is not feasible that all of these interfaces could be 

standardized across all types of video providers - something that would be 

required under the simple, common gateway model. 

7 
77 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 84 here 76572A.057

This is not to say there is no role for open standards, in fact, just the opposite, 

Having a set of standards to use makes it easier to achieve compatibility, 

Fortunately, we already have the true, underlying core standard that is necessary 

to make this happen and that is the Internet Protocol. If you look at all of the 

Internet based video services out there today, the only open standards that they 

all have in common are IP and XML - just about every other aspect is unique to 

each service, And yet devices are easily able to access all of these online video 

services today, 

Finally, even though it has increased complexity, service innovation and 

differentiation are absolutely critical in the competitive video market and must be 

encouraged, not stifled, Let's avoid repeating the mistakes of CableCARD and 

instead look to the Internet approaches that are working, Rather than dictating 

new technological approaches that would drive everything to the least common 

denominator or dramatically increase the costs to device makers, policymakers 

should encourage an approach that allows the capabilities of the new devices to 

be used to their fullest while at the same time ensuring that the subscriber'S 

services are delivered in full as expected, 

These are exciting times, Convergence, broadband adoption and consumer 

electronics breakthroughs are empowering consumers in ways that few could 

have imagined only a few short years ago, Verizon stands ready to work with this 

8 
78 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 85 here 76572A.058

subcommittee and the FCC to realize that vision. We are actively engaged in the 

industry standard-setting bodies working on these issues and we are actively 

engaged with consumer electronics makers to bring this vision to the market 

sooner rather than later. 

9 
79 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Young. 

And thanks to all of our witnesses for your thoughtful and informed comments this morning. We have benefited in our understanding of the issue from the information you have provided. 

Mr. Shanks, let me begin my question with you. You represent 

DirecTV this morning. And I hear two basic concerns being expressed by you. Let me see if there is a way to address these consistent with the FCC’s proposals. 

The first thing that I have heard you say is that you are concerned that you are in a very different situation from cable; that 

cable can place a lot of the functionality interfaces in the local 

cable headend. You have to build those into your box because, 

given the constraints of a satellite, you can’t place those interfaces 

in the satellite, so you have to do that in the box itself. And you 

are concerned that, if it is not exactly your box that your consumer 

is using, some of that functionality could be lost. 

Would it serve your purpose and satisfy that concern if you were 

able, under the FCC’s eventual order, to be able to build the essential functionality that you have to have into your gateway device? 

You could still keep it simple. The primary goal of the device 

would be the standardized output signal that could be received by 

and processed by competitively available navigation devices. But 

you could enhance it to the extent necessary in order to include 

that vital functionality that you have to provide for your consumer 

experience. 

Is that a possible solution? 

Mr. SHANKS. As we understood it today, no, in the sense that the 

third-party devices at the handoff point of a gateway can pick and 

choose what to do with the content. So—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, I think you are going to the second part of 

your concern. Let’s stick with the first part. I am going to address 

the second part in just a moment. 

So the first part is simply this. If you put that functionality that 

you have to build into your boxes today into the gateway device 

itself, why doesn’t that solve the problem? 

Mr. SHANKS. That gateway device would be our set-top box. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, it wouldn’t necessarily have to go that far. 

I mean, it wouldn’t have to do all the various things that your settop box does at the moment. It would just be the essential things 

that the cable company builds into its headend that you, by necessity today, have to put into the set-top box. 

Mr. SHANKS. I believe that the service that is sold from 

DirecTV—which is a service which is comprised of all of the things 

that, you know, we displayed in the video. The only way that satellite can actually get that service is by a completely seamless and 

disaggregated chain of satellite, set-top box, remote control to the 

television set. 

So that gateway would have to include—I mean, we actually 

don’t build unnecessary things into our set-top box because we 

don’t want to increase cost. So it is as simple as we can make it 

today. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, all right. I hear what you are saying. 

Let me ask that you give serious consideration to this possibility. 

Because the Commission is on track, and I think properly, and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
80 

many of the witnesses here have said properly, to develop the gateway box as the bridge, as the way to make sure that you really can 

have this competitive market for set-top boxes. And it seems to me 

that if you enhance that set-top box with whatever is absolutely essential for you to have in it, comparable to what the cable company 

puts in its local cable headend, and leave all the other functionality 

for the competitive set-top box itself, that the problem potentially 

is solved. And I would just ask that you give careful thought to it, 

going forward. 

Mr. SHANKS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BOUCHER. The second part of your concern was this. You 

said that you are concerned that some of the unique functionality 

that you offer that makes DirecTV special could be stripped out by 

that competitive provider of a navigation device and, therefore, deprive your customer of that unique experience. 

Would it not be a simple answer to that concern if the FCC, as 

part of its rule, basically says that all of the services provided by 

the multichannel video distributor would have to be passed 

through and processed by and made available to the consumer from 

these competitively available navigation devices? 

Mr. SHANKS. There are two concerns with that. 

Number one, that innovation is clearly happening today. Sony 

Bravia television, we hand off our signal. The complete DirecTV 

service is included in the Sony Bravia television—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, let me just see if I can get a direct answer 

to the question, because my time is limited. 

Mr. SHANKS. OK. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Would that not be a satisfactory way to handle it? 

The Commission would require that the very concern you are expressing here, in fact, not become a reality, because that box would 

have to process and make available all of your functionality. 

Mr. SHANKS. So that would just get to my second point, which 

is—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, that is the second point. 

Mr. SHANKS [continuing]. Customer service. Exactly. Which is, 

you know, the ability to be able to troubleshoot, and who is going 

to call DirecTV if the interface is completely hijacked from 

DirecTV. And that is a problem that we have had in the past. 

Mr. BOUCHER. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. McSlarrow, let me turn to you. Thank you very much for cable’s very constructive statement of principles. Those have been 

presented very well by you this morning. And I want to just make 

reference to the first one for purposes of the question to you. 

That first principle says that consumers should have the option 

to purchase set-top boxes at retail that can access their cable company’s video services without having to have a set-top box that is 

supplied by that cable provider. And that certainly speaks directly 

to the goal that we are here trying to achieve this morning. 

Can I read that statement as suggesting that the cable industry 

would also support taking the steps that are necessary to make 

sure that the switched video services, the digital switched video 

services that many cable companies are now beginning to offer— 

with, as Mr. Zinn suggested, hundreds of channels now being provided and switched digital video that cannot at the present time be 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
81 

accessed through cable cards—would you support the steps, consistent with this first principle, that would enable those switched 

digital video services to be accessed through cable cards so that 

companies like TiVo would be in a position to record those programs as well as others? 

Mr. MCSLARROW. Yes. And, in fact, in 2007, Tom Rogers, the 

CEO of TiVo, called me and asked me to help him address this 

issue. And, in fact, at the end of 2007, Tom and I made an announcement where the cable company made a commitment to supply tuning adapters to any TiVo customer so they could access 

switched channels. Now, it is not a perfect system, but we have already shown our willingness and our commitment to meet that obligation. 

Mr. BOUCHER. I appreciate that statement. 

Let me just suggest that the way that I think it is being done 

today is somewhat awkward. And it involves using a bulky tuning 

adapter, which is, itself, as large as a set-top box, and it is difficult 

to connect and utilize. 

What Mr. Zinn is proposing is that the cable company allow a 

request to be sent upstream by way of the broadband network. And 

it would seem to be a fairly simple matter for the cable company 

to accept that request and have it acted upon electronically. Would 

you agree that that is an appropriate request, and would your companies honor it? 

Mr. MCSLARROW. So I would have described the tuning adapter 

as ‘‘miniscule and elegant.’’ But—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. I have actually seen one, and it is as big as a settop box. At least the one I saw was. 

Mr. MCSLARROW. OK, large and elegant. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Yes. I think Mr. Zinn has one here, by the way. 

He can show us just how large it is. 

I am sorry. Go ahead. 

Mr. MCSLARROW. All right, go ahead. Have your field day. 

See, it is actually smaller than a set-top. 

The IP back channel is a legitimate issue. The problem we have 

right now, at the moment, is that what TiVo has asked for is a proprietary IP back channel solution, where they are working with 

SeaChange. 

We are actually open to and have told the FCC we are open to 

exploring IP back channel so you could signal upstream to the 

headend that is an open standard, that would be available to any 

consumer electronics manufacturer who wants to avail it, not just 

one company 

Mr. BOUCHER. All right. My time has long expired. And the chair 

will be generous with other Members as they propound their questions. 

Thank you very much to all of you for those answers. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just ask each of you a question. Just give me a ‘‘yes’’ or 

‘‘no’’ answer. 

Should the FCC adopt a current gateway mandate as currently 

proposed? 

Mr. Williams, yes or no? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
82 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. McSlarrow? 

Mr. MCSLARROW. I don’t know. 

Mr. STEARNS. Just ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. MCSLARROW. There is no gateway proposal. It is a concept. 

I don’t know. 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, do you support the FCC’s commission? Do 

you think they are on the right track? 

Mr. MCSLARROW. I think they are on the right track. But they 

are exploring it. It is just an NOI. 

Mr. STEARNS. So you think they are on the right track. 

Mr. Zinn? The first question is, should the FCC adopt the current gateway mandate as currently proposed, yes or no? 

Mr. ZINN. I agree that they are on the right track. I also agree 

with Kyle that it is an NOI and there is no concrete proposal at 

the current time. 

Mr. STEARNS. So you think, when they talk about the recommendation of 4.12, that is not a proposal? 

Mr. ZINN. It is a concept, and I agree with the concept. So my 

answer is yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. So you don’t see it as a mandate at all? 

Mr. ZINN. Actually, I don’t see it as a tech mandate. I see it as 

a request for standardization. So it is a definitional question: Is a 

standard a tech mandate, or is a standard a standard? 

Mr. STEARNS. So you don’t see the FCC’s recommendation as any 

mandate at all. It is just talking about apple pie and cherry pie, 

apple pie and goodness, huh? That is how you see it? 

Mr. ZINN. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. 

Mr. Shanks? 

Mr. SHANKS. No, sir. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. 

Mr. Feld? 

Mr. FELD. Well, to the extent that they ask whether—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Just a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. FELD. We filed a petition asking for a rulemaking on this, 

and they put that out as part of the NOI comments. So we support 

that. 

Mr. STEARNS. So you are a yes. 

Mr. Young? 

Mr. YOUNG. No, I don’t think the gateway proposal as it stands 

is—— 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. I think it is important, just first of all, to find 

out where you are on this basic question here. I noticed that two 

of you here wouldn’t give me an answer, and it seems a little more 

political, your answer, frankly. I would think, if you back to your 

association members, I think they are going to give you an answer 

to this and not quite as equivocal as the two of you just gave. 

Mr. Young, the National Broadband Plan calls for a gateway 

mandate to kick in on December 31, 2012. 

Mr. Zinn and Mr. McSlarrow, it is 2012, so that is a mandate, 

in my opinion. 

But, anyway, Mr. Young, so the question to you is, when do you 

think your companies will be accessible on third-party devices? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
83 

Mr. YOUNG. We are working very aggressively to make that happen well in advance of the 2012 deadline. And we believe that it 

can be done without the gateway as proposed by the FCC. So we 

are encouraged that the NOI looks for alternative approaches because we believe we have one. 

Mr. STEARNS. Do you think there could possibly be a risk that 

the 2012 mandate will slow down your existing work? 

Mr. YOUNG. That is certainly a possibility. If the gateway approach must be adopted in a particular way by all providers regardless of whether it is necessary, that would certainly slow down 

our work. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. 

Mr. Shanks, the same question to you is, when do you think your 

company is going to be accessible on third-party devices? And is 

there a risk, possibly, that this government mandate of 2012 will 

slow down your existing work? 

Mr. SHANKS. First of all, the DirecTV service is available through 

open standards called DLNA today. So you can watch DirecTV on 

a PC or on a phone or any DLNA-enabled devices. 

Mr. STEARNS. You can do it on a PlayStation? XBox? 

Mr. SHANKS. If they are a DLNA-compliant, open standard—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Handheld wireless devices, too? 

Mr. SHANKS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STEARNS. Digital recorders? 

Mr. SHANKS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. iPad? 

Mr. SHANKS. The iPad I don’t think is DLNA. But our Sunday 

Ticket application will work on an iPad, yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. 

And then I guess, Mr. McSlarrow, just the same question to you, 

possibly. 

Mr. MCSLARROW. So I could probably meet your needs here. We 

are not for a mandate. We are willing to explore these concepts. 

So—— 

Mr. STEARNS. But the 2012—your company will be accessible on 

third-party devices by 2012? 

Mr. MCSLARROW. We are already accessible to third-party devices. I think the question is whether or not there is going to be 

a marketplace that it is a two-way marketplace. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. 

Mr. Shanks, can you explain why you believe the gateway device 

mandate will hurt your ability to innovate and compete? 

Mr. SHANKS. You know, DirecTV as a service includes everything 

that you just saw. And we set customer expectations, and I think 

that that has been a big part of our success. 

The issue we have with this is, number one, obviously, it does 

give a clear advantage to cable because of their two-way pipes, and 

we only have a very large one-way pipe. 

Secondly, you know, would in the proposal any third-party device 

have to have, kind of, a litany of exceptions of things that they 

don’t get when they are buying the DirecTV brand? Because, you 

know, that box is obsolete the day that you buy it, and we continue 

to upgrade, like I said, 76 features in the last 15 months. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
84 

And, you know, as Sony and other CE manufacturers know, 3– 

D is the next big thing, apparently. We have given a free upgrade 

to all of our HD customers that will allow them to watch the World 

Cup in 3–D starting June 11th. And a third-party device, we have 

no assurance whether that customer who thinks they are getting 

DirecTV would actually be able to see 3–D. And who would they 

call? It would be just confusion on a customer service level. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Young, let’s take a hypothetical. What happens 

if someone wants to introduce some sort of functionality that the 

FCC has failed to consider, for example, or doesn’t work with the 

gateway mandate? Do you perceive that you will need FCC permission to change? I mean, how would that work? 

Mr. YOUNG. That is actually what I think is one of the significant 

flaws with the proposal as it was written. And it is basically that 

all of the intricate functionality involved in providing our services 

would have to be standardized so that they could be made available 

through this gateway. 

That means that us and DirecTV and the cable companies would 

all have to do all of our services exactly the same way, and that 

would be locked in. And then there would be no ability to innovate 

or bring new capabilities to our products because there would be 

no way of introducing new functionality outside of that standard 

that had been mandated. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Shanks, do you agree? Or would you like to 

comment? 

Mr. SHANKS. No, I think we actually agree on most of those 

points. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. McSlarrow? 

Mr. MCSLARROW. I agree. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Stearns. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank all the witnesses. This has been an instructive panel, in terms of your testimony and your answers to the 

questions that Members have already posed. 

I just want to make an observation, and that is that I have read 

what the FCC is trying to do is simply establishing a standard protocol and that that is not a mandate. And it seems to me that there 

is consensus on this panel, with the exception, I think, of Mr. 

Shanks. I hope I am characterizing it correctly. But I think that 

is important to be stated. 

I don’t think anyone here has been directly or indirectly involved—members, that is, of the committee—in mandating technologies. But standards are very important. And I think that when 

that is clear, that serves people of the country well. And so I just 

want to start out with that. 

I apologize that in my opening statement I didn’t make a special 

fuss in welcoming Matt Zinn, who is my constituent. And I am 

proud that he is here and testifying and value his service. 

So let me start with you, Mr. Zinn. You have worked hard to 

make your technology compatible with what the cable companies 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
85 

have developed. Can you tell us about either your positive views of 

what you have heard Kyle McSlarrow talk about today? Or are 

there still some lingering issues relative to TiVo and, you know, the 

plans for improving the cable card? Because I heard that that is 

where you have had problems. 

Mr. ZINN. Right. I think the biggest issue is, as I showed in the 

slides, access to switched digital programming directly. You know, 

I showed the tuning adapter. It is a set-top box. It was supposed 

to be a little dongle, but it turned out to be a set-top box. And a 

competitive box policy that requires a consumer to get a large number of channels by using a cable set-top box is the antithesis of a 

competitive set-top box policy. 

Ms. ESHOO. But in terms of what you have heard today in the 

discussion, does that clear away some of the weeds relative to what 

you just said? 

Mr. ZINN. If there is follow-through from the cable industry on 

creating an IP back channel solution that is not proprietary, that 

would help greatly. 

And then if there is follow-through on clearing away some of the 

installation support issues—self-installation goes a long way. In 

California, in your district, Comcast actually does a pretty good job 

of allowing consumers to self-install cable cards. And it is not that 

complicated. 

Ms. ESHOO. Right. 

Mr. ZINN. I think there are ways to address this—— 

Ms. ESHOO. I have even done it myself. 

Mr. ZINN. There you go. 

And then pricing. Most cable programming is sold in packages, 

and in the packages a set-top box is included. Now, if you bring 

your own set-top box, there is no discount from bringing your settop box. 

So I think that, like cable modem service, a cable company either 

lets you lease a cable modem or, if you buy a cable modem, they 

don’t charge you for the cable modem. 

Ms. ESHOO. Right. I am running out of time. 

To Mr. McSlarrow, do you want to respond to that? 

I want to take this opportunity to thank you for what you are 

doing, because you recognize that there are problems with the 

cable card. You are committed to changing that. 

Do you want to respond to some of Mr. Zinn’s comments? 

Mr. MCSLARROW. First, thank you. But just to play off of 

that—— 

Ms. ESHOO. And I think the principles that you have come up 

with, as the chairman said, is really helpful. 

Mr. MCSLARROW. Well, thank you. 

I think, as Matt was just talking about, we live in a cable card 

world today. There are issues that we need to address. We are committed to addressing them. 

But I think what is important in the take-away of this hearing 

is, what is the future like? How do we get out of that world? There 

is going to be a natural transition. It is going to be a two-way interactive world. It is going to integrate television and the Internet. 

So we are committed to doing both, addressing the near-term 

fixes that need to be addressed while we work on the future. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
86 

Ms. ESHOO. Good. 

Let me just make another observation, since I have 19 seconds 

left. And that is that I have no doubt that the October 2010 date 

and what has to take place between now and then will happen. It 

is what comes around the corner from that. And I think that is 

where most of the work lies and the cooperation has to take place. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

And, again, to all the witnesses, thank you for what you are 

doing. And I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Markey, that this is one 

of the most exciting times for us. And I look forward to people all 

over the country being part of that excitement and the services. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Eshoo. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I don’t know any Member of Congress who has more guests 

announced in a telecommunications high-tech committee than 

Anna Eshoo. 

It seems like every time we have a high-tech hearing, Anna, you 

have a constituent here. It must speak to your district, I would say. 

Ms. ESHOO. It does. Thank you. Good guess. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So, welcome. 

And I think what I just keyed on—and I am not going to spend 

a long time—the two-way interactive world. And the basic question 

is, who drives that the quickest? Government mandates—not a 

mandate, but government standards, which then moves to a mandate, versus the market. That is all. 

Now, we believe the market. I think when you look at handsets, 

the telecom bill that was passed that kind of released innovation, 

that is why we all have a multitude of things on our hips that can 

do a gazillion things that no one ever dreamed of. If we had stayed 

controlled, we would have stayed rotary. So that is kind of the 

same thing. 

Now, I have teenagers, so I am experienced in how these kids are 

way advanced. And I don’t understand how any of this stuff works, 

and I have been on the committee 14 years. But I do know, we 

have an XBox 360, and we know that gaming has pushed new technology. And then the market placed a demand for interactive gaming online worldwide. So when one of my sons is playing Modern 

Warfare 2 or whatever these great games are, they are amazing, 

but when they team up, they could be playing with kids in Japan 

or South Korea. 

Now, Mr. McSlarrow, this is over our coaxial cable. Does the 

cable industry get any revenue other than the basic service fee for 

the cable connection? 

Mr. MCSLARROW. In most cases—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No. I don’t see it. 

Mr. MCSLARROW. I mean, I can’t think of one. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You buy the XBox 360, you hook it up, and you 

can interact worldwide in a gaming situation. 

Now, the FCC didn’t intervene, didn’t tell the online game world 

and the high-tech community from Anna Eshoo’s district, ‘‘Make 

this happen.’’ It was the consumer demand of gaming worldwide. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
87 

And I would just end on that. I think it is a compelling argument 

to remember that, if we want to innovate, we let the market push 

us. And when we start dictating, we slow up the process, we don’t 

speed up the process. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Shimkus. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, there is a difference between a tech mandate and tech 

standards. A tech mandate is seen as onerous, as you hear from 

several of my friends over there. A tech standard is a set of rules 

that lets others play on a common playground. So a tech standard 

is like the plain telephone jack that allowed my young daughter to 

want a Mickey Mouse phone. 

So, Mr. Zinn and Mr. Williams, are you looking for a standard 

similar to that? Or are you looking for a mandate? 

Mr. ZINN. If I could just chime in on that, what I would have 

liked to say to Mr. Shimkus before he took off was: The reason that 

his children can do that is because of the Internet Protocol standard. And that is the same standard that the FCC is talking about 

for set-top boxes. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. And, Congressman Doyle, absolutely, it is the 

standard. And you have hit the nail right on the head here. Because, as we know from the past, if we study the past, we know 

from the national standard—it was the National Television Standard Committee, when we had an over-the-air broadcasting, didn’t 

mandate the technology of how the signal was processed. That was 

up to an individual station or broadcaster. What it allowed is everyone had the same standard to transmit. We had CBS, ABC, 

NBC compete with each other on the nightly news. And now we are 

going to have the same thing in TV 3.0, the national standard. 

But, again, how Sony is going to render the video content on the 

Internet or allow you to take the Internet and that data and interact with the services that you are buying from DirecTV or AT&T 

or Verizon, that is the brand-new world that we want to see developed through this standard, not a technology mandate. We are not 

here for that. 

Mr. DOYLE. Very good. 

Mr. Feld, I am curious about something that Mr. Young from 

Verizon raised in his testimony, that we can achieve compatibility 

through open standards with a set of protocols that will allow retail 

devices to access video services from, you know, either a cable or 

satellite company. How do you react to that? 

Mr. FELD. What we have seen historically is that we have the 

greatest potential to achieve that when the FCC plays the role of 

an honest broker, able to bring the industry together, avoid holdouts, push people, nudge, and stand above the financial interests 

that every vendor and every provider has. 

The Internet Protocol and the success we have had with that 

goes back to the dial-up modem, which goes back to the original 

Carter phone decision and the rulemakings that set that very basic 

standard. We have seen the same thing in television, digital television. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
88 

The wireless devices that Mr. Shimkus spoke of are all certified 

by the FCC. When the FCC does its job right and acts as an honest 

broker among the industry and makes it clear that there is no 

value in holding out for a proprietary or industry-specific solution, 

we are able to have these sort of protocols, and the industry is then 

able to build on that so that, having established the cooperation, 

the next generation comes much more easily to the industry. 

But it is getting over that hump to get the parties together, to 

push them to rise above their different interests and create a 

standard that really serves the consumers and industry both and 

allows the market to develop where the FCC plays such an important role. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any other questions. I will yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. 

The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding these hearings. 

You know, it is one of those things, I think, that Mr. Shimkus 

brought up. When in doubt, I have a 16-year-old and an 18-yearold I call my kids, because they are a lot more tech-savvy than us. 

And it is hard to explain to them the years of growing up in northwest Ohio when we had two channels and some days you got them 

and some days you didn’t. And with all the different things that 

are out there today, it is absolutely phenomenal what is out there. 

And I guess one of the things that I would just like to ask: You 

know, right now we have a lot of the consumers out there that look 

forward to purchasing and then installing the different video navigation devices. But what about the consumers that, again, aren’t 

as technically savvy and just want the cable/telephone/satellite 

company to provide and install the navigation device? 

And, as you know, when we completed the DTV transition, we 

spent millions making sure that people could install and set up and 

use their converter boxes. You know, I still go in a lot of houses 

today that the microwave light is blinking and that the VCR is still 

blinking. So there are a lot of folks out there, again, that aren’t 

quite as tech-savvy as some of the kids out there. 

And so I guess, if I could ask Mr. Young, is the FCC’s AllVid proposal too focused on the technical elite at the risk of the rest of the 

population, especially some of our older Americans who are not as 

proficient in adapting to the new technology that is provided to 

them? 

Mr. YOUNG. I think that there is certainly a risk of that, if it goes 

a certain direction. I am hopeful that the FCC will not go in that 

direction in the NOI. But the mandates that come along with the 

FCC’s AllVid adapter proposal—and it does go beyond just the 

standard. There are mandates there that say the vid adapter must 

do this, must not do that. And so, if that was adopted like that, 

it would have a very negative consequence for that group of people. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, let me follow up with that, then. If something 

like this would be adopted, how do we get it out there for those individuals that need help? Because, again, as we watched what happened with the transition not too long ago, we were sending out all 

this information on TV about when things were being changed over 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
89 

with signal and letting folks know they would have to have a converter box just, you know, if you want to get your regular antennas 

to work. 

But how would you foresee that we could actually get out there 

and do something? 

Mr. YOUNG. I think the best way to do that is to not disrupt what 

they are already buying and enjoying. I think that we can add support for these new devices without having to disrupt the lease 

model that many people prefer. 

And so any solution, I think, should allow the customer to choose 

which they prefer. And some customers will have a mixture of both, 

and that is a good thing. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Latta. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

And, yes, this really does go back to the Carter phone era and 

our attempts to make sure that consumers are not denied the opportunity to go out and buy their own phone. I remember when the 

CEO of AT&T sat down here in 1979 and told us that if someone 

could go out and buy their own phone that wasn’t a black rotary 

dial phone and plug it into that phone jack, it could bring down the 

whole phone system of Massachusetts. And I actually did, I turned 

to Al Gore and I said, ‘‘We’ve got to break these people up. This 

is ridiculous.’’ 

‘‘How long will it take, Mr. Chairman, for you to be able to figure 

that out?’’ ‘‘Well, about 10 years. Maybe in 10 years we will be able 

to have other phone companies able to have phones that plug into 

our phone jacks.’’ 

So that was, like, a frightening thing to me, because we were all renting that black rotary dial phone for $3 a month. Our mothers 

had done it for, like, 40 years. Three bucks times 12, 36 times 40 

years. That is like $1,400 to rent that black rotary dial phone, with 

no new device you can plug in yourself that you control. 

So we come to this point now where we have this great opportunity that make it work. Right? That consumers can plug their 

own devices in and make it work. 

So what do you think, Mr. Shanks? What are the chances here 

that you are going to be able to work this out so that people can 

buy a device that plugs into your device and still allows you to provide first-class quality service for DirecTV customers? 

Mr. SHANKS. Mr. Markey, maybe I am the only one in the room 

that sees at least one big elephant, and it is the fact that, no matter what television you buy today, you can plug it in to make sure 

it works, whether it is with Verizon or Comcast or Adelphia. There 

is a standard there. And the televisions now made by Panasonic, 

LG, Vizio, I looked up on Amazon today, 300 of them, they are all 

touting millions of Web sites that you can go to while you are 

watching DirecTV. With Panasonic even, you can Skype with your 

grandma while you are watching DirecTV. 

Mr. MARKEY. You know what, though? Here is my point. I am 

kind of a technological agnostic. I have no idea. OK? Congressional 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
90 

experts are only experts compared to other congressmen, but not 

real experts, OK? That is just an oxymoron, ‘‘congressional expert,’’ 

you know, like ‘‘jumbo shrimp’’ or ‘‘Chevy Chase nightlife.’’ OK? 

There is just no such thing. 

So we need to make sure that, you know, we just have the most 

imaginative 17-year-old out there coming up with new ideas. Which 

might not be Mr. Panasonic, it might not be Mr. anybody else. That 

is the beauty of this incredibly short road that we have traveled 

in the last 15 years. 

And as the author of Section 629, I have been waiting for the day 

where we are all liberated totally and we can just go down and buy 

the box of our choice and just plug it in there and make it work. 

So are you going to work here with the FCC to make this possible for people to be able to have more control so it is just not, you 

know, kind of an impossible technical difficulty for you to be able 

to overcome? 

Mr. SHANKS. Yes, sir. I mean, we obviously are embracing open 

standards, broadband connectivity to our boxes, to televisions, so 

that anywhere in the chain you can absolutely insert what television manufacturers are doing. 

I actually was in Silicon Valley the other day. I saw an amazing 

set-top box from a very large Silicon Valley company which was 

taking the DirecTV signal in via standard HDMI port. They put a 

complete browser over the top of it. And the cool thing with that 

was, when the browser crashed, right—which browsers we all know 

do, and you get that waiting for an hourglass—— 

Mr. MARKEY. But you will work it out, though? 

Mr. SHANKS. That is exactly—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes. As I said, there are going to be a lot of technical difficulties. 

Let me just move on quickly here. We are coming up to the 20th 

anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. And there were 

some other impossible things that we just built into that law out 

of this subcommittee, including closed captioning for all television 

sets, back in 1990. 

You should have heard the consumer electronics industry on that 

one. My God, that was going to add $25 or $30 to every television 

set. ‘‘Just very, very difficult. You have no idea, Congressman, how 

hard it will be to build that little thing in.’’ And now, you know, 

in bars across America, how could guys, you know, talk to women 

and watch the game if they didn’t have closed captioning today? I 

mean, it is an essential part of our society. And who would ever 

think of having a TV set without it in? 

So, as we are moving forward—I actually, you know, introduced 

the Video Accessibility Act, kind of, on this 20th anniversary to, 

kind of, totally modernize the access the disabled community would 

have to all this video/voice data. 

So what do you think about that? You guys are familiar with the 

bill as I have introduced it. Mr. Young, can we incorporate that as 

part of this process that we are looking at right now? 

Mr. YOUNG. You raise a very important point. Because, as video 

service providers, we have responsibilities, and we have to ensure 

that those responsibilities are met regardless of the device that is 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
91 

used to access our service. And so, yes, that is something that definitely needs to be considered. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great. 

Do you agree with that, Mr. McSlarrow? 

Mr. MCSLARROW. I do. 

Mr. MARKEY. And can we do that as part of this process? 

Mr. MCSLARROW. I think so. 

Mr. MARKEY. Do you agree with that, Mr. Shanks? 

Mr. SHANKS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Williams, could you get that done? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. That is beautiful. 

And Mr. Zinn? 

Mr. ZINN. I have no objection to that. 

Mr. MARKEY. No objection. Beautiful. 

And Mr. Feld? 

Mr. FELD. I would just like to add that bringing the inventiveness of the thousands of potential entrepreneurs and developers 

who could come up with solutions in this through a gateway so that 

we have all sorts of solutions, whatever works best for the disabilities community I think is an important part of opening up the settop box, as well, to make things like this happen. 

Mr. MARKEY. So you are saying the more open the set-top box, 

is the more likelihood that thousands of people maybe with disabilities will start to think about how they can use that device to help 

millions of people across the country better access all of this information. 

Mr. FELD. The more people working on a problem and the easier 

it is for people to adopt the solution that other people develop, the 

more likely that problem is to be solved. 

Mr. MARKEY. With the exception of the United States Senate, 

oK? And I agree with that. All general rules have exceptions. 

So I do think that we are really at the dawn of a tremendous era 

here. 

And especially you, Mr. Shanks, I would appreciate it if you 

could bring flexibility here to this process. It has been a long, long 

time. And I think it would be great if consumers could just go down 

to their store and buy the device that they want. 

And just to make sure—and, obviously, we want to have service 

and maintenance issues dealt with by the service companies. But, 

at the same time, the consumer is king and queen, and the more 

that they are allowed to do more that, I think the better off the 

whole industry is. I just think the more of these devices that will 

get sold and the more programming that will get watched, and the 

more revenue that each of your companies will be able to garner. 

So thank you so much. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Markey. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Markey, for some interesting remarks there. 

Mr. MARKEY. I will take that as a compliment, I hope. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Williams, I was wondering, what is the 

state of affairs with regard to a universal gateway device? I mean, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
92 

Sony must be developing something like that. Are the challenges 

mostly technical or regulatory? Where do we stand on that? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. The challenges are, in the sense, the current operating environment from the past where not all MVPD providers 

were required to address the solution. 

The elegance and the beauty of this proposal that the notice of 

inquiry embraces is that it is an all-MVPD solution. Telecos, satellite, cable are all at the table with the CE manufacturers and 

other groups. And the Internet, because it is open standards, it is 

well-received, you know, everyone understands the concept of common standards that allows the innovation to take place, it is moving along. 

But we need the framework to ensure that everyone has to play 

on the same field by the same rules. And that will allow innovation 

for all those people to figure out how is the best or the coolest way 

for you to interact with the TV programming that you are purchasing, be it from AT&T, Verizon, DirecTV, or Comcast. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, this reminds me a little bit of football. I 

mean, you want a level playing field and you want rules that everybody understands so that people don’t get hurt, so that the 

game can be played fairly. I mean, I think that is where we need 

to go. And what you are telling me is that, once we get those sorts 

of rules in place, then the technology ought to take off. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Absolutely. And we just have to look to—when I 

was a child, we had three stations in Boston, Massachusetts, but 

they all broadcast on the same standard. They competed on content. 

On the television side, we all had to receive the same signal, but 

we went from tube TVs to transistorized TVs. One company decided to go with RCA color mask for color TVs. We at Sony went 

a different way; we went Trinitron. So no one mandated, you have 

to use this technology to render color video. We developed it, innovated, and competed. And what happened? The price of televisions 

went down over time, and they are still going down. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. McSlarrow, you gave a list of four goals. They seem pretty 

laudable. Are those widely shared, in your opinion, the four goals 

that you mentioned? There ought to be retail devices; the devices 

should be transferable; they should have access to Internet videos; 

and there should be search capabilities. Are those, in your opinion, 

universally shared goals? 

Mr. MCSLARROW. It depends which industry. I mean, I think the 

goals—it is are probably hard to disagree with them. I think the 

proof of the pudding is going to be in what requirements are placed 

on different actors in the system to accomplish those goals. You 

know, we have been basically debating that point this morning. 

But I think the one great opportunity that we have that is new 

today that wasn’t present when the original 629 was enacted is 

that we live in a broadband age. And the convergence is taking 

place. And there are—as others have made this point—you can go 

to Best Buy today, and you can see devices today that do a lot of 

these things. 

So, to some extent, we are accomplishing these goals today. It is 

probably also true that working together—and, again, it doesn’t 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
93 

necessarily require a mandate—but working together as providers, 

manufacturers, content creators, we might be able to come up with 

some kind of interface that makes this even easier and deploys 

even more quickly. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Zinn, what specific proposals would you offer to benefit customers to have an early implementation in a short time frame? 

Mr. ZINN. I am not sure I understood the question. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, let’s see here. Well, you expressed concern 

that it would take too long to arrive at solutions that will be amenable to independent providers. I was wondering what specific proposals you might have to offer that would benefit customers. 

Mr. ZINN. Well, my view is—and I think it is borne out by this 

panel—is, there is not a broad consensus on the gateway approach. 

Right? Mr. Shanks is going to need a lot of convincing. Mr. Young 

is going to need some convincing. The cable industry is more on 

board than the rest. Sony is on board. But, you know, my experience in this industry over 20 years is that things take a lot longer 

than we think they are going to take. And the FCC may say 2012, 

but I don’t believe it. 

And, in the interim, cable card is what we rely on. The TiVo box 

does not work if a cable card does not work, end of story. And we 

are the only people who depend on it. So we need to make it work 

today, this year. And we are glad that the FCC is determined to 

make that happen. 

So, you know, we need access to programming, installation has 

to work, and we have to end this pricing discrimination. That is 

what we need today. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So you are saying that the best thing to do, 

then, is to go after cable cards, make them work, as soon as possible. 

Mr. ZINN. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. 

Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me, one more question? 

Mr. BOUCHER. One more question, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Shanks, you certainly seemed to voice concern about the bias 

in the current program. Do you think a universal gateway device 

can be developed that would be unbiased, that would allow you to 

offer services that can be available by the universal gateway device? 

Mr. SHANKS. I do believe that there are major concerns on our 

part when it comes down to the economics of a gateway and the 

advantage that cable would have over satellite and, therefore, you 

know, what that would do to the marketplace of a gateway and 

third-party devices. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. McNerney. 

And thanks to all of our witnesses for your outstanding testimony here and what has been a very interesting conversation back 

and forth with you today. 

We are going to keep the record of this hearing open for 3 weeks. 

And, during that period of time, Members may well be propounding 

in writing some additional questions to you. When you receive 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
94 

those, please respond as promptly as you can and help illuminate 

our record of this hearing with your answers. 

Our thanks to each of you for taking time with us today. 

And this hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
95 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 102 here 76572A.059

Statement for the Record 

Hearing Entitled "The National Broadband Plan: Competitive Availability of Navigation 

Devices" 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the I.nternet 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

April 29, 2010 

Congressman Robert E. Latta 

MR. CHAIRMAN; RANKING MEMBER STEARNS: Thank you for holding this 

subcommittee hearing on the National Broadband Plan and navigational devices. It is my 

understanding that the Plan makes recommendations concerning how set-top boxes and other 

video navigation devices can change the way consumers utilize vides programming services and 

broadband. 

When reviewing the history of the FCC regulations relating to CableCARDs, I have some 

concerns with thc National Broadband Plan's suggestion for the FCC to ensure that all multichannel video programming distributers (MVPDs) install a gateway device or equivalent in all 

new subscriber homes and in all homes requiring replacement set-top boxes, starting on or before 

December 31,2012. In addition, there is a requirement for cable operators to fix certain 

CableCARD issues while development of the gateway device functionality progresses. It 

appears that the FCC has been trying to regulate in this area for the past 20 years and has been 

unsuccessful. The industry has been forced to spend more than $1 billion imposing this product 

on consumers. Now the FCC is proposing to impose new regulations on a system which is not 

working. These new regulations will inevitably force additional costs on to the operators, who 

will then pass the cost on to the consumers. I believe that the issue of gateway devices should be 

left to the stakeholders in the industry and market negotiation. Any additional government 

regulation will stine competition and slow innovation. 
96 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 103 here 76572A.060

While I realize this hearing is to discuss fUl1her mandates related to set-top boxes, it is 

unclear to me how this recommendation from the FCC promotes broadband deployment. My 

number one concern is jobs. and representing one of the most rural areas of Ohio, I am keenly 

aware of the importance broadband deployment plays in economic development and the nexus 

this access has to job creation. At a time when the unemployment rate is 11.0% in Ohio, and 

over 12% in many parts of my District, we need to \vork towards creating new, high paying jobs. 

Broadband expansion can help the economy by creating new jobs related to the deployment of 

the necessary infrastructure, as well as by giving unemployed workers access to tools that will 

help them find and prepare for new jobs. Congress' number one priority should be job creation. 

Broadband deployment will literally get shovels in the ground and people back to work. 

It appears to me that these new regulations regarding this set-top box issue will make it easier for 

individuals to dO\\l1load content off the Internet; however many people in my District do not 

even have access to the Internet. Under this proposal. more people who already have high speed 

broadband connections will download more movies from Amazon or Netflix and watch them on 

their big screen TVs. However, I do not understand how this will increase broadband 

deployment to the unserved. I am concerned that these new government mandates will further 

perpetuate the disparities that currently exist. 

Mr. Chainnan, thank you, and I look forward to hearing the testimony from the witnesses 

on the panel today. 

2 
97 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 104 here 76572A.061

MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

April 28, 2010 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

RE: Hearing on "The National Broadband Plan: Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices" 

Dear Chairman Boucher, Rep. Stearns and Members of the Committee: 

I am writing on behalf of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. ("MPAA") and its member studios 

with respect to the above-referenced hearing scheduled for April 29, 2010, and request that this letter be 

made Palt of the record of this proceeding. MPAA appreciates the Committee's interest in the competitive 

availability of navigation devices and shares the Committee's goal of ensuring that American consumers 

have choice in innovative consumer electronics equipment to receive and view high-quality, compelling 

multichannel video content. MPAA would like to emphasize, however, that the Committee should remain 

cognizant of the critical role of content in this ecosystem as it considers these important matters. 

While a discussion about set top boxes may appear on the surface to be primarily focused on technology and 

electronics equipment, the reality is that these devices playa vital role in content protection, presentation, 

and innovation. In particular, as technology evolves these devices will have an increasingly important 

responsibility in protecting content against unlawful distribution. Given that unlawful distribution is an acute 

and growing threat to all creative industries, which takes an incredible toll on the American economy and on 

U.S. jobs, it is essential that any dialog on this subject include content protection and security as key 

elements. Likewise, innovation in the creation and presentation of content are important factors which affect 

consumers' use and adoption of video services, and should also be taken into consideration. 

Therefore, as Congress and this Committee take steps to promote the retail availability of more innovative set 

top boxes, including a potential new "gateway" device capable of accessing both television- and Internetdelivered video, MPAA urges that any inquiry into these matters keep content protection, presentation, and 

innovation at the forefront of the conversation. 

Should you have any questions about this submission, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Respectfully submitted. 

A. Robert Pisano 

President and interim Chief Executive Officer 

1600 Eye Street, NW· Washington, DC 20006·202.293.1966 
98 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 105 here 76572A.062

SONY 

June 3, 2010 

VIA EMAIL (EARLEY.GREENE@MAIL.HOUSE.GOV) 

The Honorable Parker Griffith 

417 Cannon House Office Bldg. 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Re: Written Question Follow up to April 29, 2010 Hearing Entitled "The National 

Broadband Plan: Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices" before House 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology & the Internet 

Dear Congressman Griffith: 

In response to the written question you submitted following the above-referenced hearing, Sony 

Electronics Inc. ("Sony") responds that it provides its television customers in the United States the 

following customer service options at no charge managed from Sony's Ft. Myers, Florida customer 

service center: 

Telephone support: available 8:00am to midnight Eastern on weekdays and 9:00am to 

10:00pm Eastern on weekends 

Online chat support: available 24 hours 

Email support: available 24 hours 

Website support: available 24 hours 

Approximately twenty-two percent (22%) of phone calls received by Sony from its television customers 

involve issues relating to cable, satellite, or other set~top boxes. 

Sincerely yours, 

lsi 

Michael T. Williams 

Executive Vice President & General Counsel 

cc: Earley Greene (via email) 
99 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 106 here 76572A.063

May 18,2010 

National Cable & Telecommunications Association 

25 Massachusetts Ave, NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

Dear Mr. McSlarrow: 

the Internet on 

Competitive 

before the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and 

2010, at the "The National Broadband Plan: . 

Putsuant to the Committee's Rules, attached are written questions for the record directed 

to you from certain Membcrs oflhe Committee. In preparing your answers, please address YOut 

response to the Member who submitted the questions. 

responses by June 3, 2010, to Earley Green, Chief Clerk, via e-mail 

~~~rl£:tS;~;J:lii[fu!lgilLh'>-\!§"""iQ.' Please contad Earley Green or Jennifer Bercnholz at (202) 

any questions. 

Sincerely. 

Chairman 

Attachment 
100 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 107 here 76572A.064

Response to: 

The Honorable Cliff Stearns 

1. Please respond to the following statements: 

a. One-size-fits-all technology mandates usually succeed. 

I don't believe that is generally true. And it is not obvious that such mandate is necessary 

or would work in the competitive video marketplace. Direct broadcast satellite. lJ-Verse. FiOS, 

digital cable, broadband cable modems and broadband telephone modems all use different 

technologies and interact differently with set-top boxes and other customer premises equipment 

to offer consumers exciting new services. Cable operators have digitized, switched. and 

repurposed their spectrum tiJr more HD, lllorc services, and faster broadband. and in tandem. 

cable set-top boxes have grown from devices that merely extended the tuning range of 

consumers' televisions into high-definition devices and DVRs, oftering on-demand content 

switched digital video, interactive program guides. t-commerce, voting, polling, two-way 

network services like StartOver, cross-platfonn services like caller ID on the TV, Intemet-fed 

widgets, and lava-based tools as a platform for future innovation. All of these innovations 

occurred outside of prescriptive government mandates. Imposing a onc-size-fits-al! model onto 

these architectures and services therefore runs a high risk of liustrating innovation and 

competition. 

b. What the FCC could not accomplish when subscription-TV was an analog, cablecentric, Iincar video platform will be easier now that it is a digital, interactive, 

Internet-enabled vidco platform populated by diverse cable, satellite, and phone 

company architecturcs. 

In a one-way analog world. cable channels could be "broadcast"' downstream within fixed 

frequencies and be received by a "cable ready" TV following the same channel plan. The 

diverse, interactive. and rapidly evolving services now oflered by MVPDs do not fit easily into 

anyone architecture. The cable industry is committed to providing video content to consumers 

where and when they want it, on all possible consumer devices, and for those devices to be 

innovative platfonlls for new applications. We want consumers to be able to buy video devices at 

retail and to know that cable content can be among their video sources. But we think that the best 

approach is through cross-industry eftorts to meet consumer-driven needs, rather than regulatory 

mandates. 

c. Government predictions of what technologies and business models will succced and 

where markets are going are usually accurate. 

In the pertinent examples below, the FCC's predictions in this area were all rapidly outpaced by 

technology. 

• In 2005, the Commission predicted that requiring CabJeCARDs to be included in leased 

sct-top boxes would bring down the cost of CableCARDs and increase competition, but 
101 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 108 here 76572A.065

five years later the Commission's integration ban has cost consumers approximately a 

billion dollars and counting, in the name of supporting fev,er than a mere 500,000 retail 

devices. 

• In 2003, the IEEE1394 interface appeared to be a promising connector, and the 

Commission mandated the inclusion of a 1394 output in HD set top boxes. Almost no 

one uses it today, because 1394 was rapidly overtaken by Ethernet. USB and wi-Ii all of 

which nourished without any government mandate. 

• In 1998. the Commission predicted that it was unnecessary to impose any regulation on 

DBS set-top devices in order to assure that they would offer support for a retail market, 

but instead DBS has moved almost entirely away ii'om retail to operator-owncd, leased 

devices. 

Predictions that consumers will demand new means of accessing video content likely are 

accurate. In fact. our industry is anticipating and addressing the demand right now. Ho\\ever, 

predictions of which technologies or parties will be best able to meet that demand are at best 

educated guesses. Rigid technology mandates are not well suited for an industry as dynamic as 

the video distribution business, and can undermine the very innovation we all seek to achieve. 

d. The goyernment usually responds to changes in technology and market conditions 

faster than industry. 

One of the great costs of current technology mandates is their intlexibility in 

accommodating a dynamic change in the market. 

• The cable industry's new interactive switched digital video (SDV) technology allows 

cable spectrum to be repurposed for faster broadband. more HD, and more channels and 

services. SDV deployment was stalled for over a year as the FCC questioned whether it 

met the rules adopted for one-way CableCARD devices. 

• A pioneering manufacturer, Evolution Broadband, created a low-cost digital-to-analog 

box that could be used to turn cable systems all digital with minimum disruption to 

subscribers. It waited more than a year for an FCC "navigation device" waiver that 

allowed cable operators to use these boxes to speed cable's transition to all digital. 

Hollywood studios have been trying to bring new theatrical window movies securely to 

consumers in their homes. They had to wait ncarly two years for a "selectable output" 

waiver from the FCC. 

To its credit, the current FCC has recognized the failure of the cuncnt approach, and is 

proposing more t1exible approacbes to past mandates. 

2. In 1992 and 1996, when the set-top box proYisions were created, cable providers seITed 

the lion's share of subscription-TV households, Isn't there even less justification for 

government intcITention now'! Satellite operators and the phone companies SCITC onethird of subscription-TV households, and all providers are experimenting with thirdparty devices to remain competitive. 
102 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 109 here 76572A.066

Four of the ten largest M VPDs today are direct broadcast satellite and telephone 

companies who already collcctively serve more than 37 million customers and whose share 

continues to grow while cable's share continues to decline. There is also now a tlourishing and 

rapidly-growing market for Internet-enabled devices that offers consumers an ever-widening 

alTay of choices for information, entertainment. and communications applications - a testament 

to the billions of dollars invested by the cable industry to ilIDovate and bring high-speed 

broadband Internet to more than 90 percent of American households. Set-top boxes are now 

supplied by a growing number of competitive consumer electronics manufacturers, including 

Pace, Motorola. Cisco. Evolution Broadband, Samsung, Panasonic. and TiVo. Comcast CEO 

Brian Roberts has demonstrated the use of an Apple iPad to view' content and interact with and 

control a home television remotely. 

The proliferation of such consumer choice removes any justification for applying set-top 

box rules only on the cable industry: no retail market is likely to form around a "digital cable 

ready" device that will not work with DISH. DirecTV, AT&T, and Verizou, as the Commission 

has recently recognized in its set-top box Notices. In addition, while there may be a constructive 

role for government, the competitive torces at work are creating ever more choices in services 

and devices to consumers-which is the essential purpose of both the 1992 alld 1996 Acts. 

3. The gateway device proposal came from the national broadband plan, but don't most 

subscription-TV customers already have broadband? How will this mandate promote 

deployment or adoption? 

The cablc industry is a strong proponent of creative broadband adoption programs. Cable 

has invested billions to make high-speed broadband Internet available to more than 90 percent of 

American households. As detailed below in Ans\ver 8. consumers today can select from among a 

wide variety of Internet-enabled devices to get the device and price point for the funetionalities 

they want, and we believe that ever more Internet content will be provided to television viewers. 

At this point, we do not know what elfect a technology mandate would have on deployment or 

adoption, but in our experience a technology mandate would end up imposing unnecessary 

expense on subscribers as market demand and technologies continue to change. 

4. Aren't technology mandates, by their nature, almost always inflexible and onc-sizc-fitsall? Can they ever really account for, let alone foster, diversity in technologies and 

business models? Don't they usually end up just raising consumer costs and hindering 

innovation'! 

As detailed abo\'e in answer Ie and ld. technology mandates adopted by the Commission 

for set-top boxes have cost consumers over a billion dollars in waste and proved how poorly 

technology mandates can predict the direction of the technology market The Commission's 

most recent Inquiry specifically invites proposals for alternatives to an inflexible gateway, 

including movement away from navigation devices and into the cloud. 

We believe that whatever role the government plays, it should facilitate the deployment 

of different video device options in response to dynamic and varying consumer demands, rather 

than requiring that all devices include the same features for all consumers. It is also critical to 

accommodate the flexible use of ditTerent architectures now existing or developed in the Juture 
103 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 110 here 76572A.067

- for accessing multichannel video provider services. These could include. for instance. set-back 

boxes. gateways. network interface units. or delivery from the "c1oud" without the need for any 

dedicated receiving device. 

We should allow for the possibility of ever more innovative devices while preserving 

alternative possibilities such as innovation in the network or the cloud. which may lead to fewer 

or simpler devices in the home. None orus can predict with any certainty v.hich is the better or 

more likely path. and it is quite possible that multiple paths will emerge. A mandatory gateway 

would presumably be aimed to feed the home network. but there is no one home networking 

"solution" for the Commission to choose. The market has already spoken. and. as is common in 

technology. it is allowing multiple solutions to compete. Congress and the Commission havc 

repeatedly counseled against having the government try to pick winners or losers. which can lead 

to dead-ends or impede innovation. 

It is clear that the creation of a robust market for new video devices requires some 

assurance that CE manufacturers will actually build and retailers will willingly stock such 

devices. That is more likely to be achieved through industry collaboration with appropriate 

government oversight rather than through government mandates. Otherwise, if there are to be 

government mandates imposed on !\1VPDs to help a retail market develop. complementary 

mandates on consumer electronics manufacturers and retailers would be necessary to assure that 

those devices arc "commercially available:' 

Congress warned the Commission that in implementing Section 629. the Commission 

must "avoid actions which could have the ef1'ect of freezing or chilling the development of new 

technologies and services." I1.R. Rep. No. 104-458. at 181 (1996) (Conf. Rep.). reprinted in 

1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 124. 194. 

5. If operators must pass all content through to third-party devices while providing no 

additional functionality in the gateway adapter, and if device manufacturers are 

allowed to disaggregate all the content and combine it with anyone else's content from 

any other source, haven't we turned the networks into dumb pipes'? Wasn't the goal of 

the broadband plan to encourage deployment? What incentive is there for providers to 

invest in broadband under this regime? 

I think the record is quite clear that maintaining investment incentives tor facilities-based 

competition has been a very successful means for delivering innovation and value to consumers. 

in both video and broadband. Convening MVPDs into dumb pipes is antithetical to the national 

goals of extending and enhancing financially viable broadband networks. 

6. Aren't subscription-TV providers already experimenting with third-party devices? 

Aren't these efforts more likely to succeed than one-size-fits-all rules that micromanage 

what devices you must offer and support? Isn't it better to have all sorts of approaches 

compete in the market so we find out which ones work? In fact, isn't it likely tbat 

different approaches will work better for different needs? 

Direct broadcast satellite. U-Verse. FiOS. digital cable. broadband cahle modems and 

broadband telephone modems all use different technologies to engage in fierce competition to 
104 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 111 here 76572A.068

the benelit of consumers. Set-top boxes are now supplied by a growing number of competitive 

consumer electronics manufacturers, including Pace. Motorola. Cisco, Evolution Broadband, 

Samsung. Panasonic. and TiVo. At our recent Cable Show held in Los Angeles, for example. 

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts demonstrated the use of an Apple iPad to view content and interact 

with and control a home television remotely. Consumers in tum may select from among a wide 

variety of otTerings to get tbe device and price point for the services they want. Rigid technology 

mandates are not wel! suited for an industry as dynamic as the video distribution business. and 

can undermine the very innovation we all seek to achieve. 

7. What happens if someone wants to introduce some sort of functionality that the FCC 

has failed to consider, or that doesn't work with the gat£way mandate? Will they now 

need FCC permission to innovate'? 

As detailed above, one of the great costs of cun'ent technology mandates is their 

inflexibility in accommodating a dynamic change in the market. Any similar mandate--such as 

a specific [olm of gatcway-·risks becoming out of date and serving as a bottleneck for 

innovations (such as 3 D) which have either not been anticipated or have not settled on any 

industry standard. 

8. The gateway mandate is premised on the idea that government regulation is needed to 

drive the convergence of the Internet and TV. But that convergence is already taking 

place in the marketplace, as shown by the widespread availability of Internet-connected 

TVs, DVRs, and other devices. Won't the marketplace do a better job of driving 

continued innovation in this area than government regulations? 

Internet video is being brought to TVs today with products from Apple, Boxee, Blu-Ray, 

DivX. PlayStation. Roku, TiVo. Vudu and Xbox, all without cable set-top boxes. Microsoft, 

Sony. and Nintendo have already sold over 45 million game consoles that can be used to watch 

Internet-delivered video. PCs. laptops, and netbooks stream video through HDMJ or other 

connections. (An HDMl card can be added to a PC fI.)r as little as $50.) Over 50 Internet-enabled 

TV models from Samsung. Sony, Panasonic. Vizio, and other top manufacturers are on sale now. 

equipped with Ethernet ports that can plug into a home network or a networked pc, and Google 

has announced new televisions that will provide video through Google's Android plattorm and 

Chrome browser. Thc marketplace is bringing Internet to TV faster than government regulations 

are even being proposed. 

9. The goal of the gateway mandate is to drive innovation in the device marketplace, but 

the proposed rules would force every subscription- TV provider to supply its customers 

with a "dumb" gateway dcyice. How does this promote innovation? 

MVPDs have delivered innovative new services to consumers by making devices smarter 

and more interactive. not dumber. For example. it is through advanced set-tops that cable 

operators are delivering high-definition DVRs, on-demand content, switched digital video. 

interactive program guides. (-commerce. voting. polling. two-way network services like 
105 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 112 here 76572A.069

Start Over. cross-platform services like caller ID on the TV. and Intemet-fed widgets. Dumbing 

down video devices is antithetical to innovation. 

10. If we force gateway devices on consumers who are happy to use operator-provided settop boxes, haven't we imposed costs on them without providing any additional 

functionality? 

Many customers only want their television to be simple to set-up and understand. In 

marking the moment when Apple overtook Microsoft as number I in technology. astute 

observers noted that "Steve [Jobs) saw way early on, and way before Microsoft. that hardware 

and software needed to be married into something that did not require effort from the user ... 

Apple's products are shrink-wrapped and ready to go:'! Many consumers do not want 

complicated pairing of gateways with new devices or home networks. It is critical to 

accommodate different consumer needs by allowing different architectures - now existing or 

developed in the future - for accessing multichannel video provider services. These could 

include. for instance. set-back boxes. gateways, network interface units. or delivery from the 

"cloud" without the need for any dedicated receiving device. It will impose unnecessary cost 

and complexity to make every customer access MVPD services through a gateway defined by 

govemmcnt mandates. 

11. If the gateway mandate requires you to allow device manufacturers to disaggregate all 

the content you carry and combine it with anyone else's content from any other source, 

don't we have copyright and interface issues? 

Content creators rely on license agreements to fund the creation of content. Programmers 

negotiate carriage agreements with distributors that typically include detailed tenTIS sUITounding 

channel position, tier placement. advertising and presentation of the programmer's content. and 

picture quality. For their pm1. MVPDs design channellinellps, tier structures. marketing 

messages. service look-and-feel. quality of service. and actual delivery of content. in order to 

maximize their effectiveness as video retailers. All of these arrangements are protected by the 

Constitution's guarantee to respect works of authorship brougbt to the public: by hundreds of 

patents around which current implementations have been developed; and by state laws against 

misappropriation. Some have asked the FCC to disaggrcgate the MVPD retail business and 

convert MVPDs into wholesalers of programming for reuse by retail equipment providers, 

without license obligation to MVPDs or to content providers. This approach would raise a host 

of copyright and patent issues. Disaggregation would also prevent consumers from seeing and 

using MVPD services in the way they were purchased. and create consumer confusion over who 

is responsible for problems with access to content and basic device operation. 

I Apple Passes Microsort as No.1 in Tech. New York Times. BI. May 27.2010. 
106 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 113 here 76572A.070

June 3, 2010 

Honorable Parker Griffin 

417 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Parker: 

The Chainnan of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Henry Waxman, has forwarded 

~o me your question submitted as part of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology 

and the Internet's April 29th hearing on "The National Broadband Plan: Competitive 

Availability of Navigation Devices." Thank you for giving me the opportunity to ten you 

about TiVo's customer service operations. We are proud that the Better Business Bureau has 

given us one of their highest ratings for service. (htip:llsanjose.bbb.orglBusiness-ReportlTivoInc-210334) 

The short answer to your question "does TiVo offer its 2417 customer service?" is yes. TiVo 

offers its subscribers access to online support 24 hours a day, 7 days a week:. Through TiVo's 

online support, customers can: 

• Access answers to the most :frequently asked questions. 

• Troubleshoot issues with step-by-step articles written to walk customers through a 

particular issue. 

.• Watch videos that guide them through set up challenges or "how to's" on how to use 

specific features of the service. See http://supporttivo.com. 

• Log on to their account and make changes to their billing options, update contact 

information, change credit card information, and change account privacy settings. 

• Contact TiVo' s support team through email by logging on to their account to submit a 

question or seek support for an issue. The current service level response for e-mail is 

24 hours, although typically customers receive a response within a few hours during 

normal call center hours (6:00 am to 9:00 pm PST, 7 days a week). 

• Contact TiVo support personnel via Chat from the TiVo website at 

http://support.tivo.com/app/home during normal call center hours. Chat inquiries are 

responded to within minutes during normal call center hours. 

• Seek help from other customers and TiVo's "AU Star forum team" at 

http://forums.tivo.com/pe/index.jsp 24 hours a day, 7 days a week:. 
107 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 114 here 76572A.071

Honorable Parker Griftln 

June 3, 2010 

Page 2 

TiVo employees range behveen 300-400 agents and typically average 150-180 agents on the 

phones and online conducting real-time chats as well as returning e-mai1s during normal hours 

of operation. 

r hope this responds to your question. If you need further information or have any additional 

questions, pleasc don't hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Matthev siml 

Senior 'giJPresident, General Counsel, Secretary & Chief Privacy Officcr 
108 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 115 here 76572A.072

May 18,2010 

Eric Shanks 

Executive Vice President, D1RECTV Entertainment 

DlRECTV 

2230E. 

El Seglmdo, 

Dear Mr, Shanks: 

thelntemet 

Competitive fn'alJaOlllC> 

the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and 

at the hearing entitled "The National Broadband Plan: 

Pursuant to the Committee's Rules, attached are written questions for the record directed 

to you from certain Members of the Committee. In preparing your answers, please address your 

response to the Member who submitted the questions. 

Attachment 

by June 3, 2010, to Earley Crreen, Chief Clerk, via e-mail 

Please contact Earley Green or Jenrtifer BerenhoJz at (202) 

Sincerely, 

Chairman 
109 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 116 here 76572A.073

DIRECTV Responses to Questions from Ranking Member Stearns 

,June 4, 2010 

(DIRECTV responses in italics) 

I. Please respond to the following statcments: 

a. One-size-fits-all technology mandates usually succeed. 

The most recenr example of such a mandate in the video distribution induSII]! is 

the CablcCard regime. The FCC has exempted satellite carriersfi'oll1 its 

CableCARD mandate because they ofler set-top boxesfi'om numerous 

/11C1nuf(/clurers nationally and at retail. BUI. as an olltside obsel'1'er. D1RECTV 

fails 10 see subslantial public ii71ercs{ benefitsfi'ol11 Ihal particular technoloxy 

mandate. The cable industry claims to hm'e .Ipent //lore than a bil1io/1 dol/ars 

implementing this mandate. A similar burden would significant(v diminish 

DIRECTV's ability to compete 1rith cable. 

b. What thc FCC could not accomplish when subscription-TV was an analog. cablecentric. lincar video platform will be easier now that it is a digital. interactive, 

Internet-enabled video platform populated by diverse cable, satellite. and phone 

company architectures. 

Even if a mandate were otherwise desirable (and we beliel'e it is not). developing 

a mandate that would 1fOrk across MVPD architectures 11'O!tld be extraordinarily 

difficult. J,f'e hope that. as it considers the issue. the FCC/i.dly considers the 

technological differences between cable and satellite. Satellite carriers place 

much of their/imctionality in the set-top box, while cahle operators can place this 

/ill1ctionali(v in their nel1t'ork headends. Satellite set-top boxesjimctiol1 by 

re,lponding to ne/l1'ork data passed to [hem over the satellite. and using thai data 

to inleractwith cOl1lent stored ol1lhe boxes. Cable devices. by contrast. can 

communicate with the network in realtime and do not l1ecessari~)' Ileed slorage 

capability. The Commission has yet to address how third-party devices could 

work 1rith such differel1l netl1'Ork architectures. Coming lip \rith protocols and 

specifications/hI' cable s),s{e/11s alone look 1110st ora decade: doing (he same for 

cable and satellite and te/co .Iystems would like(v rake just as long or longer. 

c. Government predictions of what technologies and business models will sllcceed 

and where markets are going are usually accurate. 

Again. 11'e think the FCC's experience with CableCARDs is instruclive. Although 

olle can poi17l to mal1Y reasonsj(lr the apparent./2Iilure of the CableC4RD regime. 

il seems clear to liS that consumers simply did not want the technol0i-')'. This is 

always a risk with mandates of this sorl. Likewise. the Commission mandated 

Ihal ffD cable boxes all be equipped with fEEE 139-1 -:fire1\'ire" connectiolls; a 

physical port that many consumer electronics designers 110 longer favor. 
110 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 117 here 76572A.074

We are very close ro deploying R J'U technology todav. ll'hich "'ill all011' bOlh the 

display of linear l1'irh online video and rhe d!lfilsiol1 of thor video fhroughour the 

home. Indeed. R J 'U will al/oH' the telel'isionfo become fhe "shopping mall" 

experience cited hy Chairman Gel1w.:ho11'ski--in which users could choose among 

dilfi:rcl1I "stores" (NetF/ix. rotlTuhe. DIRECIT or another ;\1JPD). htltthe 

"stores" themseh'es lI'ollld hm'e their olt'n/ook andfeel. Wefear Ihal an FCC 

"all-vid" lIIamiare could disrupt this rollout infuror of a lechnology Ihatassuming it can be developed -is at hest years away. 

d. The government usually responds to changes in technology and market conditions 

faster than industry. 

Please see (lI1S1t'cr 1. c. above. 

2. In 1992 and 1996, when the set-top box provisions were created, cable providers served 

the lion's share of subscription-TV households. Isn't there even less justi tication for 

government intervention now? Satellite operators and the phone companies serve onethird of subscription-TV households. and all providers are experimenting with third-pm1Y 

devices to remain competitive. 

In 1992 and 1996, video competition exisled only in all emhlyonic state. Today. 

DIRECT V competes against entrenched cable operators across the CUUnll:]·. One of the 

primary ways }l'e C(lI1 do so is to olter hel/cr. more innovative. morefimctional set-top 

boxes and other del'ices. DIREC7'l' l1'as Ihefirst MT'PD 10 deploy MPEG-./ compression 

and to introduce a suhstantial slme of HD programl11ing~enabled by lechnology in our 

set-lop hoxes. IVe !1m'e won eight El11l11Y.l'for our lec!mology. including our inleraClire 

NFL Sunday Ticket and olher .Iporlsjeatures, all of which are powered hyjealures in Ihe 

set-lap hoxes. Our l1e]l'erfeatllres~rangingf;'()/l1 our DVR Scheduler 011 computers and 

smart phones 10 DIRECTV TV Apps to Common Sense ,Hedia ratings in our 

programming guide 10 3D lelcl'ision--all rely on technology residing in the set-lOp box. 

Aloreol'CI'. we regular(v upgrade our SCI-top hoxes 10 keel' lip 'with technological 

advances, And. as discussed above, \1'e arc ab(JUI/o introduce RFU-enabled del'ices tha! 

will enable a whole nell' level of/illlclionaliry and cOl1nCClil'i!y. This, in turn. should 

encourage cable operators to improl'i! Their own del'ices. 

3. The gateway device proposal came from the national broadband plan, but don't most 

subscription-TV customers already have broadband? How will this mandate promote 

deployment or adoption? 

Many, i/no{ 1110st, %ur cllstomers already have broadband. We beliel'e the same is Irue 

for cable and Ie/co subscrihers as >1'ell. since those .I),slems typically otler hroadband 

along 11'ilh video. IVe hare seen no evidence to suggest that a set-top box mandate lI'ould 

promol!' broadhand adoptiOn. 
111 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 118 here 76572A.075

4. Aren'tteehnology mandates, by their nature, almost always inilexible and onc-size-fitsall') Can they ever really account for, let alone foster, diversity in technologies and 

business models') Don't they usually end up just raising consumer costs and hindering 

innovation? 

Such a risk is often. i/nof all1'ays. associated 11'iI17 K01'ernment fechnoloKY mandates. 

Here. H'e see a rery real risk that this parlicular mandate would disrupt deployment o/a 

technolo&'y ready today (R fT!)fiJr a more expensh'c lessfimctional. longl'r-Ierm. and 

(fiJI' us) competitively harn!/id government alternative. 

5. If operators must pass all content through to third-party devices while providing no 

additional functionality in the gateway adapter, and if device manufacturers are allowed 

to disaggregatc all the content and combine it with anyone else's content from any other 

source, haven't we turned the networks into dumb pipes? Wasn't the goal of the 

broadband plan to encourage deployment? What incentive is there for providers to invest 

in broadband under this regime? 

To us. this is one ollhe biggest potenlial problems l1'i/11 the proposed mandate. We do 

not ofjer a "dumb pipe ')in- video, Rather. we hcl1't! inl'ested billions upon billions to 

of leI' an integrated service with our own look and/eel. our own zmique(eatures. and 

industry-standard customer service, This is why millions have slrilchedji'ol/1 cable to 

DIRECTV. If'e do 110t know how. or ill l1'i1atfiJrm. we could exisl as a "dumb pipe, .. 

6. Aren't subscription-TV providers already experimenting with third-pm1y devices? Aren't 

these efforts more likely to succeed than one-size-fits-all rules that micromanage what 

devices you must oner and SUPPOl1'? Isn't it bettcr to have all sorts of approaches compete 

in the market so we find out which ones work? In fact. isn't it likely that different 

approaches will work better for different nceds? 

Today. we offer set-lOp boxesji'om six diflc:renl manufacturers. We are den:loping a 

variety (i/slrategies -including hOll1e-gatC1l'ays and wireless technologies-Io offer our 

service wilhol/l hoxes at all, Third-parly televisions and otiler derices will he abl" 10 

inlegrate this service with other content, such as Interne/-delivered COl1tent, The RVU 

Alliance standard is key to Ihose effort.\', We are il71'esling inlhese il1n01'(lli1'e 

technologies preCisely because wefeel it is lrhat consumers want. and Ihus what we must 

do so 10 compete We strongly/eel thai this approach is pre/i:rable to a K01'emment 

mandate. 

7. What happens if someone wants to introduce some SOli of functionality that thc FCC has 

failed to consider, or that doesn't work with the gateway mandate? Will they now need 

FCC pcnnissiol1 to innovate? 
112 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 119 here 76572A.076

One %urfearsfi'ol11 Lin "all vid" mandare is that H'C l1'Ould 110t be able to ofFer 

il1l1oFations without/irst consulting the FCC' and/or manu!i:ICturers oj'derices connected 

to the (Ill rid adapter. To take just ol1e example, H'e have recent~v been able to download 

sojiware to our boxes that enable them to process a 3D sif!,nal. We did not need to 

consult the FCC. and 11'e did not need /0 consult third parties, whose ml'l1 equipment may 

or may not have had /iJe capahility tofimction with this software. We/ear that /he "all 

vid" mandate l1'Ouid preclude ill' substal1lia!~v delay such il1l701'ation in/hefl/ture. 

8. The gateway mandate is premised on the idea that government regulation is needed to 

drive the convergence of the Internet and TV. But that convergence is already taking 

place in the marketplace. as shown by the widespread availability ofIntemet-connected 

TVs, DVRs, and other devices, Won't the marketplace do a better job of driving 

continued innovation in this area than government regulations? 

We think there is no shortage oj'such derices. And. again. the RVU Alliance standard 

H'ill al/oH' liS to integrate Ollr own scrrice 11'ith such derices '-l1'ithollt the need/hI' FCC 

intervention. 

9. The goal of the gateway mandate is to drive innovation in the device marketplace, but the 

proposed rules would forcc every subscription-TV provider to supply its customers with a 

"dumb" gateway device. How does this promote innovation? 

We view such a mandate as slowing in!1oration, by (among other /hings) derailing 

deployment of del'ices compliant with the RVU Alliance standard. Moreover, as lfe 

described ahove, slich a mandate would preclude DIRECIYfro//7 offering newfeall/res 

lfilhout/irst consulting with /hird-party del'ice makers, 11'ho might or migh/ 110t decide to 

support such/eatl/res. This, il1 turn, greatly diminishes DIRECTV·.\' ':tirst morer" 

incentil'es to o[ter stich features, 

10. lfwe force gateway devices on consumers who are happy to use operator-provided seltop boxes. haven't we imposed costs on them without providing any additional 

functionality') 

Yes. A requiremel1l to proride such derices to each of'our customers-regardless oj' 

lI'hether they 11'({17t thel17-lrOlild represent a significant burden on consumers. 

11. If the gateway mandate requires you to allow device manufacturers to disaggregate all the 

content you carry and combine it with anyone else's content fl'om any otber source. don't 

we have copyright and interface issues? 

Yes. For example, programmers grallt 11.1' limited copyright licenses lrith nUl7ler01lS and 
113 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 120 here 76572A.077

specific limitations on how we transmit and di,\play their copyrighted works. Each of" 

Ihose licenses is different. and the n:sull olintense notifications. In general, h011'e]'er. 

IlIese licenses are quite particular ahout placement, and do not allow liS to disoggregate 

content. For example: 

• A manll!i.lcturer (e.g.. Sony) could make a smart del'ice that gal'e 1Il0l'efal'Orable 

placement to VOD content offered by a particular content provider (e.g., Sony 

Pictures). Certain DJRECTV contracts prohihit such discriminatory treatment. 

yet under an "all-]'id" mandate. DIRECn' would have no \1'a)' to prel'ent this. 

• A rhird party del'ice could replace or deletc commercials included with the 

programming. or otherwise alter the conlel1l of the programming. in violation of 

certain carriage agreements. 

• A third party manufacturer could design its device to list adult content next to a 

family channel's content in I 'OJ) and programming guide screens. Ccrtain 

DJRECTV col1lracts prohibil this, yet DIRECTV would have 110 ]ray of prohibiting 

smart del'icesji'om doing so. 

• A third party device could change the channel placemenr or the "neighhor/1ood" 

in which a particular channel is placed, contrmy to certain contractual (and 

perhaps regulatory) obligations. 

• A third party device could seek to increase capacity hy more heavily compressing 

certain channels, contrar), to certain contractual (and perhaps regulatoJ)') 

oh/igaliol1s. 

• A third parly device could make U/wUlhori:::ed copies o{the programming. 
114 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 121 here 76572A.078

May 18.2010 

Vice rr"SlL,eu,-r'LUL"'" Regulatory Affairs 

Verizon 

13001 Street. NW 

Suite 400 West 

Washington, DC 20005 

DearMr. Young: 

Competitiyc 

before the Subcommittee on Communications. Technology. and 

at the entitled "The National Broadband Plan: 

Pursuant to the Committee's Rules, attached are "Titlen questions for the record directed 

to you from certain Members ofthe Committee. In preparing your answers, please address your 

response to the Member who submilled the questions. 

Please provide your responses by June 3, 201 O. to Earley 

fu!~;:J;lr!2!lli::(j;!J:miLfrffiU~>.QY. Please contact Earley Green 

Sincerely. 

Chainnan 

Attachment 
115 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 122 here 76572A.079

The Honorable Cliff Stearns 

1. Please respond to the following statements: 

a. Onc-size-fits-all technology mandates usually succeed. 

b. What the FCC could not accomplish when subscription-TV was an analog, cablecentric, linear video platform will be easier now that it is a digital, interactive, 

Internet-enabled \ideo platform populated by diverse cable, satellite, and phone 

company architectures. 

c. Government predictions of what technologies and business models will succeed and 

where markets are going are usually accurate. 

d. The government usually responds to changes in technology and market conditions 

faster than industry. 

On the one hand. flexible. industry-led standards developed through appropriate standardssetting bodies can be significant in promoting innovation and competition. and the Federal 

Communications COl11mission (FCC) and other policymakers can serve an important role in 

encouraging appropriate standards-setting groups to develop such standards. On the other 

hand. prescripthe technology l11andates that require all providers to follo\\ ing a particular 

approach - notwithstanding differences or changes in consul11er demand or technology 

invariably inhibit innovation and harm consul11ers. MOI·eovcr. by failing to adequately 

account lix the wide variety of ways that different providers serve consumcrs today - much 

less the wide and unpredictable range of services and technological approoches that will be 

available in the future - technology mandates create a substantial risk of distorting 

cOl11petition and delaying. deny ing. or increasing the costs of innovative services and 

approaches that may otherwise be available to consumers. These risks are particularly high 

in the context of competitive and technologically dynamic services. 

Today's video marketplace reveals the important differences bet\\een technology mandates 

and pro-consumcr industry standards. Consumer demand and technological advances creates 

enormous pressure on video providers (particularly ne\\ entrants in the video marketplace) to 

work together \\ ith consumer electronics manufacturers and content providers to develop 

standards that increase consumers' ability to view content on more devices and to integrate 

content frol11 a variety of sources. including the Internet. As a result. \\ork is well undcr\\a) 

on a variety of standards, such as DLNA and RVU. to improve the consumer experience in 

accessing content from a variety of sources and viewing it over a varicty of devices 

connected to their home networks. As a result of work such as this and following the 

proven model used to develop other standards stich as MPEG. the foundation of most digital 

video today the options available to consumers arc rapidly increasing and \\ ill only 

continue to do so in the absence of ne\\ technology l11andates. 

In contrast. the CableCard experience shows the ineffectiveness of prescriptive technological 

mandates by regulators. In order to comply with the detailed, technological requirements 

only applied to a subset of competitors. providers - and ultimately consumers - bore 

tremendous costs, vvith little benetlt to show from it. Even though Verizon was a new entrant 

with a relatively low number of customcrs and a novel technological approach. we were 
116 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 123 here 76572A.080

forced modi f)' our services and network infrastructure in order to support the legacy 

tcchnological mandatc and divert resources and attention away from continued innovation in 

our video service, notwithstanding the fact that compliance with this cable-centric mandate 

was of little benefit to consumers more interested in obtaining the full benefits of Verizon's 

capabilities. 

Rather than repeating the failed CableCard experiment involving technological mandates as 

the detailed FCC gateway proposal risks doing if it Ivere to become a prescriptive rule 

policymakers should encourage the pro-consumer developments already leading to industry 

standards which will better serve consumers. encourage innovation, and fulfill the objective 

of Section 629 of the Communications Act. 

2. In 1992 and 1996, when the set-top box provisions were created, cable providers served 

the lion's share of suhscription-TV households. Isn't there even less jnstification for 

government intervention now? Satellite operators and the phone companies serve onethird of subscription-TV households, and all providers are experimenting with thirdparty devices to remain competitive. 

The increased range of video competitors and the variety of differentiated service offerings 

and technological approaches removes any need lor government intervention with respect to 

video navigation devices and other video services technology. Today, video providers are 

responding to competitive pressures and consumer demand by working actively with CE 

manufacturers and other stakeholders to increase consumers' options for accessing video 

content It'om a variety of sources and using a variety of devices. Government mandates 

intended to spur innovation are not necessary and more likely would slow progress. 

Providers must discover ncw ways to attract and retain customers and mect their demands. by 

differentiating their services. introducing new technological and/or service innovations, and 

enabling consumers to access their services on consumers' choice of devices. Providers are 

already working with manufacturers to bring to market new and compelling devices for 

accessing content. Government imposition of an inflexible technology mandate in the midst 

of this highly collaborative and productive environment will force companies to cutiail 

current efforts to develop innovative, new products and redirect their efforts to simply 

mccting the mandate. thereby derailing the progress that has already being made. 

3. The gateway device proposal came from the national broadband plan, but don't most 

subscription-TV customers already have broadband? How will this mandate promote 

deployment or adoption? 

It is unclear how requiring providers to provide a limited functionality "AIIVid" adapter that 

would connect a video provider's service to consumer electronics products purchased at retail 

would promote broadband deployment or adoption in any meaningful way. All of our FiOS 

customers already have access (0 our cutting-edge broadband Internet access services. and 

the vast majority FiOS TV subscribers have elected to receive bundled packages of services 

that include broadband. Moreover. consumers already have access to a wide and grol\ ing 

range of devices such as the PlayStation 3, Roku, Apply TV or even Wi-Fi enabled TV sets 

2 
117 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 124 here 76572A.081

or bill-ray players - that enable consumers to access Internet content for display on their 

televisions. Under these circumstances. a mandate to provide a particular piece ofequipmcl1t 

with prescribed technological capabilities - as the gateway device would do - is not likely to 

move (he needle on broadband deployment or adoption. 

4. Aren't technology mandates, by their nature, almost always inflexible and one-size-fitsall? Can they ever really account for, let alone foster, diversity in technologies and 

business models? Don't they usually end up just raising consumer costs and hindering 

innovation? 

As explained above. technology mandates almost invariably inhibit innovation and harm 

consumers. In the casc of dynamic services and technologies - as is the case with today's 

video and broadband prescriptive rules are unlikely to keep pace with changes in consumer 

demand and technology. Given the positive. consumer-driven developments that are already 

well underway in this area and that promise fulfillment of Congress's vision in adopting 

Section 629 and an ever-increasing array of device and service choices lor consumers the 

adoption of new technology rules dictating a one-siz.e-fits-all approach would be 

counterproductive. Regulators would be shooting behind the duck as they seek to predict 

ho\\ technology will evolve and be il11plemented. and by doing so they would jeopardize or 

delay the positive developments already bringing increased choice and innovation to 

consumers. 

5. If operators must pass all content through to third-party devices while providing no 

additiunal functionality in the gateway adapter, and if device manufacturers are 

allowed to disaggregate all the contcnt and combinc it with anyonc else's content from 

any othCl' sourcc, haven't we turned the networks into dumb pipes? Wasn't the goal of 

the broadband plan to encourage deployment? What incentive is thcre for providers to 

invest in broadband under this regime? 

Yes, ifnew rules were to require the disaggregation of video services in the way describedessentially turning video providers into the wholesale providers of video programming to 

other device manufacturers or service providers then that would (among other things) 

undermine providers' ability to offer differentiated and innovative services to consumers and 

diminish incentives to invest in the broadband net"orks over which those services are 

delivered. 

Today. video providers compete not just on content olTerings and price. but also on 

additional differentiated service features. For example. Verizon has been the first to market 

numerous innovations to its video customers. including the multi-room DVR - which allows 

custol11ers to record a \ ideo program in one room and watch it on televisions in any other 

room of the house - and Widgets which enable FiOS customers to view Intcmet content on 

their televisions, such as YouTube. Facebook and Twitter. These and other innovations 

which have increased the service and viewing options for consumers would be threatened by 

an approach \vhich limits providers' ability to introduce innovative new approaches or [orcefit their services into a single. dumb-pipe model. Forced disaggregation of a video provider's 

service would also distort video competition if other increasingly popular providers of video 

3 
118 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 125 here 76572A.082

programming -- including online video providers such as Netllix. YouTube and Hulu were 

not subject to the same requirements. Today. these online providers offer their services in 

ways that alkm them to maintain the integrity of their services and ensure a consistent look 

and feel ti)r their customers. It would make no sense and would lead to customer 

frustration and contusion - if other video providers were denied this same ability. In 

addition. any such rules that inhibit providers' ability to offer high quality. differentiated 

services that will attract consumers would also directly undermine national broadband goals 

by decreasing the provider's expected return on investment created by the full range of 

services otfered over its broadband network. Moreover. in our experience. many consumers 

continue to prefer the simplicity and affordability of leasing a set-top box directly from a 

provider. and business/service models such as these should continue to have a place in futuTe 

video service evolution paths. 

6. Aren't subscription-TV providers already experimenting with third-party devices? 

Aren't these efforts more likely to succeed than one-size-fits-all rules that micromanage 

what devices yon must offer and support? Isn't it better to have all sorts of approaches 

compete in the market so we find out which ones work? In fact, isn't it likely that 

diffcrent approaches will work bctter for different needs? 

Yes. as noted above. considerable work is already underway that is increasing the 

consumers' ability to use their choice of devices to watch video programming. In addition to 

the important standards-setting work that is facilitating those developments - including work 

on DLNA standards that will lacilitate wider access to video programming over a customer's 

home net\\ork and work Oll RVU standards that will enable more powerful video services to 

operate on many devices more economically --- providers arc also working directly with 

consumer electronics manufacturers to increase the choices available to COllsumers. Verizon. 

for c.xample. has already completed proof of concept trials with several manufacturers that 

would allow FiGS TV service to work through game consoles and other networked devices 

without the need lor set-top boxes. Any new technology mandates would only frustrate the 

progress being made along these lines by diverting attention and resources to regulatory 

compliance instead of collaboration and innovation in industry bodies and directly among 

industry players. 

7. What happens if someone wants to introduce some sort of functionality that the FCC 

has failed to consider, or that docsn't work with the gateway mandate? Will they now 

need FCC permission to innovate'! 

Prescriptive technological mandates inevitably pose risks to innovation. To the extent any 

new FCC rules require a particular technological approach. there would be a substantial risk 

that such a rule would interfere \\ ith a provider's ability to introduce ne\\ or differentiated 

features or functionali!ies that were not contemplated by, or that arc inconsistent with, the 

rule. Providcrs need flexibility to offer new innovations - such as Verizon's multi-room 

DVR capability or FiGS Widgets - and there is a substantial risk that prescriptive technology 

mandates would get in the way. As services continue to become more advanced and 

interactive in response to changes in technology and consumer demand. the likelihood of 

technology mandates keeping pace becomes all the more remote. 

4 
119 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 126 here 76572A.083

8. The gateway mandate is premised on the idea that government regulation is needed to 

drive the convergence of the Internet and TV. But that convergence is already taking 

place in the marketplace, as shown by the widespread availability of Internet-connected 

TVs, DVRs, and other devices. Won't the marketplace do a better job of driving 

continued innovation in this area than government regulations? 

Yes. as explained above. consul11er demand and advances in technology - including the 

continued development of industry standards that facilitate home and wide area networking 

over a variety of devices and services is already increasing the choices available to 

consul11ers and furthering the convergence between traditional video services and Internet 

content. A wide range of networked devices already on store shelves today allow consumers 

to easily access and view content from the Internet, and this convergence will continue. 

Indeed, as explained above. Verizon's services and platforms have furthered these 

developments, through the introduction of innovations such as FiOS Widgets that allow 

customers to access on their TVs content from Internet sites such as Facebook and Twitter. 

For example. Verizon recently launched a new application that brings Internet video content 

and hundreds of Internet radio stations to our FiOS TV experience. FiOS TV customers can 

now enjoy any YouTube video or if-leart Radio station right on their TV screens. Other 

online video-sharing sites are already available to our FiOS customers -- such as blip.tv. 

Dailymotion and Veoh. These pro-consumer developments are happening in the absence of 

new regulatory mandates. and will continue in response to consumer demand. 

9. The goal of the gateway mandate is to drive innovation in the device marketplace, but 

the proposed rules would force every subscription- TV provider to supply its customers 

with a "dumb" gateway device. How does this promote innovation? 

As explained above, new technology mandates including prescriptive rules requiring a 

specific gateway devices are unlikely to benetit consumers or promote innovation. Rather 

than taking that approach. the FCC and policymakers should encourage the work already 

well underway in appropriate standards-setting bodies and in the marketplace to increase the 

choices available to consumers. A one-size-fits-all approach would ignore the different 

technologies and service features among different providers. and would inhibit continued 

innovation 10 better serve consumers. 

10. If we force gateway devices on consumers who are happy to use operator-provided settop boxes, haven't we imposed costs on them without providing any additional 

functionality? 

Any requirement to use a new device - in addition to the operator-provided device needed to 

get all of a provider's service .. has the potential to impose costs on these subscribers without 

any offsetting benetits. In our experience. many consumers continue to prefer the simplicity 

and affordability of leasing a set-top box directly from a provider. and business/service 

models such as these should have a place in the future video service evolution paths. 

5 
120 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 127 here 76572A.084

ll.lfthe gateway mandate requires you to allow device manufacturers to disaggregate all 

the content you carry and combine it with anyone else's content from any other source, 

don't we have copyright and interface issues? 

Protecting copyright and addressing interface issues to cnsure a high quality consumer 

experience are both important issues. and each could be undermined by inappropriate new 

obligations to disaggregate a servicc or by new technology mandates that provide access to 

programming without appropriate safeguards. By maintaining the integrity of their services. 

video providers arc able to ensure that the interests of content partners and of consumers are 

protected. 

o 

6