Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING PUBLIC MEETING ON

TEST PROCEDURE FOR SET-TOP BOXES

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Room 8E-089

Wednesday February 27, 2013

**Facilitator:** Doug Brookman Public Solutions Baltimore, MDExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 **Participants Identified:**

Jennifer Amann ACEEE Joseph Andersen TIA Tim Ballo Earth Justice

Tom Eckman Northwest Power and Conservation Council Kuriacose Joseph Director of Engineering DIRECTV Gregg Hardy ECOVA Noah Horowitz NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council David Hungerford California Energy Commission Adam Goldberg Consultant, Representing TiVo Neal Goldberg General Counsel National Cable and Telecommunications Association

Paul Glist Davis Wright Representing NCTA Stephen Jeong UL LLC Katherine Kaplan EPA EnergyStar Program Gary Langille Echostar Technologies Representing Dish NetworkExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 Mark Levine Consumer Electronics Association

Jonathan Make Communications Daily Mateusz (Matt) Malinowski ICF International

Joshua S. Parker Willkie Farr & Gallaher, LLP

Chuck Samuels CEA Jennifer Sanford Cisco Systems Charlie Stephens Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Rachel Unger ICF International

Robert Turner Pace

**Webinar Participants (Identified):** Antonio Figueiredo

Ken Rider Roger GoodnerExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 **Participants from DOE:** Jeremy Dommu Project Manager for Rulemaking

Francine Pinto General Counsel’s Office Ashley Armstrong

**Participants from Navigant/LBL:** Allen Tsao (presenter) Navigant Consulting Mansi Thakkar (presenter) Navigant Consulting

Mike Rivest Navigant Consulting

Debra Brunk Navigant Consulting

Louis-Benoit Desroches Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Stephanie Gupana Navigant Consulting Anthony Rotolo Navigant ConsultingExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 **AGENDA**

**ITEM PAGE**  Opening Statements 6

Further Introductions 9 Rulemaking Process, Mr. Dommu 17 Scope, Mr. Dommu 22 Summary of the NOPR, Mr. Dommu 55 Navigant Presentation, Ms. Thakkar

Definitions 60 Test Conditions and Setup 95 On, Sleep and Off Mode Tests 110 Navigant Presentation, Mr. Tsao

Calculation of AEC Metric 186

Estimated Burden to Small Businesses 190Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6

P R O C E E D I N G S 1 MODERATOR: (meeting in progress at start of 2 audio.) 3 **Opening Statements** 4 MR. SAMUELS: ... standard 2043. However, for 5 the reasons I’m going to briefly explain, we oppose 6 the promulgation of a federal test procedure for set 7 top boxes. It’s unnecessary and would be detrimental 8 both to innovation and to the existence of an up-to9 date, technology relevant national test procedure. 10 First let me announce, for those who don’t 11 know it, that with support from CEA and NCTA, 15 12 industry-leading multi-channel video providers and 13 device manufacturers announced a voluntary agreement 14 in December, which is a major step forward in 15 increasing the deployment of energy efficient set top 16 boxes. A corporate entity is being formed and the 17 companies and associations have met to develop a 18 comprehensive and rigorous program for determining 19 compliance with the commitments of the voluntary 20 agreement, as well as to set future goals. 21 We will be glad to provide for the 22 administrative record, information on this agreement 23 as well as our future activities. 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 We would have hoped that the efficiency 1 advocates would have been parties to this agreement 2 and we’re disappointed that they’re not. Nonetheless, 3 we are committed to continue to discuss with them the 4 implementation of the agreement and what can be done 5 in the future to extend it. 6 Because of this agreement, and for the 7 reasons that we stated in the pending proceeding on 8 whether or not set top boxes should be a covered 9 product, we don’t think a federal test procedure is 10 necessary because there’s no justification for federal 11 standards. And the set top boxes should not be 12 designated as a covered product. Now curiously, this 13 proceeding has been commenced even though the question 14 of whether or not set top boxes should be a covered 15 product has not been resolved. 16 As DOE and other stakeholders know, CEA has 17 a very active process to develop a national consensus 18 test procedure which is close to finalization, CEA 19 2043. In fact, we have taken the comments, the 20 variations in this proposed test procedure as comments 21 to our consensus test procedure and will attempt to 22 integrate as many of them as possible. DOE, NRDC, and 23 other parties here have been part of that process and 24 we think that that is going to work out quite 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 satisfactorily and ensure that our country has a 1 uniform, national test procedure. Please keep in mind 2 that federal test procedures historically have 3 remained stagnant for many years and have not kept up 4 with technological developments. This is only going 5 to be exacerbated by actions like the sequestration 6 and future budget constraints. A consensus standard 7 like CEA 2043, on the other hand, can be revised 8 relatively quickly for relevance and incorporation of 9 developments in the design and use of set top boxes. 10 In contrast, a federal test procedure will only have 11 the effect of inhibiting innovation since it will be 12 illegal to make energy claims outside of the scope of 13 the test procedure, at least without obtaining a 14 waiver which is an uncertain process. 15 Since there’s no FTC labeling, since the CEA 16 process already has a relationship with EPA and with 17 EnergyStar, we don’t see any reason why there needs to 18 be a federal test procedure. We’re glad to 19 participate. The technical minded among us, like the 20 chairman of our committee, Gary Langille will make 21 technical comments today, but we do want to make clear 22 that we don’t think it’s necessary for the Department 23 to promulgate a test procedure. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. A few individuals 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 have joined us and they didn’t get a chance to 1 introduce themselves, so we’ll do that now. Your name 2 and organizational affiliation? 3 **Further Introductions** 4 MR. JOSEPH: I’m Kuriacose Joseph 5

from DIRECTV. 6 MR. TURNER: Robert Turner from Pace in the 7 UK, manufacturer. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 9 MS. SANFORD: Jennifer Sanford with Cisco 10 Systems. 11 MS. AMANN: Jennifer Amann with ACEEE. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Any other 13 individuals that wish to make opening remarks? Yes. 14 Neal first. 15 MR. N. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Neal Goldberg 16 from National Cable Telecommunications Association. 17 First of all, thank you for inviting us and letting us 18 come. And a particular thank you to you, Doug, 19 because at least as we understood it at the last 20 meeting, last public meeting, we took a suggestion 21 from you to try and negotiate a voluntary agreement 22 that obviates a need for regulation, and Chuck stole 23 my thunder but basically that’s what we did and the 24 companies involved are the six largest cable 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 10 companies, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Fox, Charter, 1 Cablevision, Brighthouse Networks, along with AT&T, 2 Verizon, Century Link and Motorola, Cisco, Arris, and 3 Echostar Technologies. 4 That agreement, when announced, received 5 bipartisan support, particularly from Senators 6 Feinstein and Murkowski, and as recently as yesterday 7 on the Hill, House Energy Subcommittee hearing, 8 although it wasn’t the subject of that hearing, there 9 were statements with respect to the agreement by 10 Congressman Dingell and Markey. 11 I will yield the rest of my time to my 12 counsel who will be more diplomatic than I would be, 13 but I would like to say that the agreement is being 14 implemented now, and as Chuck suggested, it’s open to 15 other parties, my friend Noah and his colleagues, 16 particularly, to have further discussions with us. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 18 MR. P. GLIST: I also appreciate the growing 19 insights that are reflected in the NOPR, but we oppose 20 the adoption of federal test procedure. I’m not going 21 to repeat what Mr. Samuels has said, although I agree 22 with everything that he stated. I will supplement it 23 in this way. 24

You know from the record that we have 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 11 submitted in the prior chapters of this saga, that we 1 do not believe that the Department has jurisdiction or 2 the need to set the different set top boxes as a 3 covered product, or to set a testing method for it. 4 To my understanding, testing is normally explained as 5 providing consistency for the market or as a basis for 6 a standard, and we don’t have a requirement for 7 standardized testing to be promulgated by the 8 Department. We have, under the voluntary agreement, 9 adopted uniform testing procedures. All agreed to 10 follow it. There’s not a problem of misrepresentation 11 in the market. Everyone recognizes that this is a 12 market in which consumers are not buying individual 13 boxes off the shelf. Under the VA, we’ll be following 14 a uniform method, informed a great deal by 2043, and 15 we’ll be posting the results publicly. It is curious 16 to me at the least that there’s no mention of the 17 voluntary agreement at all in the NOPR. 18 The other justification often given for a 19 procedure like this is to set the basis for a 20 standard, and in fact, many aspects of the NOPR signal 21 that a standard is in the work. We have previously 22 raised the point that DOE standards would not result 23 in a significantly better energy conservation result 24 than non-regulatory approaches. And through the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 12 voluntary agreement we already have up and running, an 1 organized, rapid, flexible structure to conserve 2 energy, which includes standards. It’s now already 3 achieving dramatic market place improvements that are 4 superior, faster, and more flexible than a regulatory 5 approach and has, as Mr. Goldberg explained, it has 6 already received repeated bipartisan endorsement as 7 the appropriate way for industry to address a 8 complicated technology such as this. 9 We urge the Department to give the voluntary 10 agreement an opportunity to work, to collect from us 11 reports which we are happy to share, and not try to 12 supplant the good work that the voluntary agreement 13

reflects. 14 I’d also suggest, and we can explore this in 15 more detail as the slides progress, that the specific 16 way that the NOPR is framing out the issues is 17 creating disincentives for energy efficiency and it is 18 introducing competitive disparities that should be 19 troubling to the Department. 20 To illustrate it very briefly. It would 21 make it unlawful, to my understanding, for somebody to 22 market a device that is a more efficient DVR because 23 the recording capability is housed in the network 24 instead of the device, which does not make sense from 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 13 a conservation point of view. 1 As another example, the NOPR basically lumps 2 a set of service provider devices, regardless of the 3 characteristics of the individual combinations of 4 hardware and software into a class of set top boxes 5 subject to this regulation, while it excludes 6 categorically hundreds of millions of devices that are 7 currently being used for video viewing. It is 8 attributing the video viewing to the set top box. At 9 the very time that Nielsen has embraced these other 10 devices as part of the measured television universe, 11 at the very time that the makers of XBox have said 12 these are intended to be video devices, and so we 13 submit that that is an arbitrary distinction that will 14 cause great competitive disparity in the market. 15 I would add that in addition to the parties 16 that Mr. Goldberg named, the parties to the voluntary 17 agreement transect the entire industry and include 18 DirecTV and Dish, and not simply Cable, telephone and 19 the equipment suppliers -- very broad support, very 20 broad base. It covers 90 million households, better 21 than 90 percent of the devices out there, and we’re 22 already achieving results. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments at 24

the outset? Noah. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 14 MR. HOROWITZ: Noah Horowitz with NRDC. 1 Three brief comments. We, NRDC, do support DOE moving 2 forward with the development of a test method for set 3 top boxes. We agree with the use of CEA 2043 as a 4 starting point, and then making modifications on top 5 of that. And we agree with many of those changes or 6 modifications contained in the draft by DOE, and then 7 there’s some other points that will come up today that 8 we’ll be providing input on. 9 I want to point out the voluntary agreement 10 has been referred to several times today -- that’s an 11 agreement solely written by industry and only signed 12 by industry members. It’s non-binding, and the reason 13 advocates -- I can speak for our organization -- 14 haven’t signed, it’s due to the lack of specificity 15 and stringency within the current draft. We’re open to 16 ongoing conversations with the group, but we don’t see 17 that as a substitute for DOE action. Thank you. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Gary. 19 MR. LANGILLE: Hi. My name’s Gary Langille 20 and I’m speaking on behalf of both Dish Network, third 21 largest video provider in the US, and also Echostar 22 Technologies, which is a set top box manufacturer. 23 Our belief is that a test procedure rulemaking is not 24 required. We believe that the current CEA standard 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 15 that’s in process and is attempting to incorporate any 1 issues raised as part of the DOE NOPR, is sufficient. 2 We also believe that it’s a mechanism that can be 3 adapted very quickly by either issuance of errata or 4 revision as new capabilities and functionalities are 5 introduced by companies. We believe it’s fully 6 sufficient for use by the EPA in their EnergyStar 7 program. It certainly -- it’s already been adopted as 8 a reference point for the industry voluntary 9 agreement. And we also believe that if DOE does elect 10 to continue the process of issuing a test procedure 11 that it should be referenced as is, without 12 modification. 13 We believe that if DOE moves forward with a 14 rulemaking around a test procedure that we do 15 understand that additional information is required, 16 you know, perhaps which devices are included or not 17 included, what combinations and configurations need to 18 be tested, and also how data may have to be reported. 19 But we believe that all of that kind of information 20 should be handled as supplemental information, as part 21 of a rulemaking, as opposed to sort of a rewrite of 22 the actual test procedure. 23 I did want to point out that we’re very much 24 committed to the industry voluntary agreement. Our 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 16 two companies. In fact, the agreement, in essence -- 1 its really first deliverables are at the end of this 2 year, but the fact of the matter is that if you 3 actually look at the current EnergyStar set top box 4 qualified product list, over 50 percent of the 5 products on that list do not meet the minimum required 6 level for regulation under EPCA, that is, therefore 7 far less than 100 kilowatts per year per device. To 8 me, that means that DOE should really stop, reexamine 9 whether these products even qualify under EPCA. 10 The average DVR, which has been cited by 11 advocates as being basically the cause for rapid and 12 future increases in energy consumption, is now 13 averaged at 145 kilowatt hours per year. This is 14 almost -- this is 48 percent reduction over advocates’ 15 estimates of what a DVR consumption is, in less than a 16 year’s time. So industry has delivered over 50 17 percent -- almost 50 percent savings in its most 18 energy-consuming product in a year’s time. We expect 19 that trend to continue as we install systems. 20 I’d also like to point out that even though 21 the voluntary agreement hasn’t even begun, Dish alone 22 has delivered over two million thin client set top 23 boxes, resulting in a savings of almost 400 -- 24 approximately 400 kilowatt hours over delivering 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 17 equivalent DVRs, and savings of almost 50 million. 1 Complementing that with introductions by the cable 2 industry of a light sleep mode, we already have saved 3 over $100 million dollars per year on a running rate, 4 and almost a billion kilowatt hours. And the 5 voluntary agreement hasn’t even started yet. 6 So just to summarize. We do believe that 7 DOE should reexamine the justification for regulation 8 and issuance of a test procedure, and thank you. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments 10 here at the outset? No additional comments. Okay. 11 So then we’re going to proceed with the content. All 12 of you received a packet of information as you checked 13 in this morning. These colorful PowerPoint slides 14 will be the basis for both discussion and question and 15 answer as we proceed today. Jeremy, I turn it over to 16

you. 17 **Rulemaking Process** 18 MR. DOMMU: Hello everyone. This is Jeremy 19 Dommu again, Department of Energy. I’m going to begin 20 with a presentation now. I believe the first couple 21 slides that I’m going to bring up on the screen have 22 already been covered, the welcome, the agenda, the 23 webcast instructions. 24 The purpose of today’s public meeting is to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 18 present DOE’s proposed test procedure for set-top 1 boxes, and we will be inviting comment on the test 2 procedure notice of the proposed rulemaking document 3 throughout the day and with subsequent written 4 comments that -- to be submitted by April 8 th . We’ll 5 also discuss the next steps in this specific 6 rulemaking related to the proposed test procedure and 7 again, invite participants to provide summary comments 8 or statements and raise additional issues for 9 discussion. So that’s going to be the focus of 10 today’s meeting. 11 Throughout the presentation we’ll have issue 12 boxes and the issue boxes bring up specific issues in 13 which we’re seeking comment. When we see them we’ll 14 be able to pause in the presentation to allow all 15 stakeholders an opportunity to provide their oral 16 comments today. Also on these issue boxes is a 17 reference, a footnote reference, to the corresponding 18 issue number as it had appeared originally in the 19 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking document that was 20 published in the Federal Register on January 23 rd

. 21 Here’s the opening remarks slide, which we 22 obviously just had and now I am going to begin today’s 23 public meeting first with the rulemaking process 24 agenda item. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 19 So for the regulatory history, Part A of the 1 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, established energy 2 conservation program for consumer products other than 3 automobiles, and subsequent amendments to EPCA gave 4 DOE the authority to regulate the efficiency of 5 several types of equipment. It also provided DOE the 6 authority to classify additional types of consumer 7 products as covered products. 8 In June 2011, DOE preliminarily determined 9 that set-top boxes and network equipment meet the 10 criteria for covered products. At this time we have 11 not yet finalized that coverage determination. 12 So for the test procedure rulemaking 13 process, we began this process with the publication of 14 a Request for Information in December 2011. That 15 asked specific questions on the rulemaking process as 16 it related to test procedures and also efficiency 17 standards. We received written comments and we held a 18 public meeting and provided an overview of that 19 rulemaking process during the RFI and that public 20 meeting. 21 In January of this year we published the 22 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking test procedure for set23 top boxes. Today we are holding a public meeting, and 24 the comment period ends on April 8 th . The next step 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 20 after the comment period ends would be a final rule 1 publication. The timeline of that is to be 2 determined. Our rulemaking process could take one of 3 two directions, of either based on the nature of 4 comments that are submitted to DOE, DOE may opt to 5 make any changes to our proposal, and if those changes 6 are significant enough, we may issue a Supplemental 7 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to allow stakeholders an 8 additional opportunity to provide comments to us. If 9 there aren’t sufficient comments or DOE opts to move 10 forward, the next step could be the publication of the 11 final rule. 12 So when we start out to establish a test 13 procedure, we look for a number of objectives to be 14 met by the test procedure. 15

**•** We want to look for a test procedure that is 16 repeatable, meaning that the test procedure outputs 17 similar results when the laboratory conducts multiple 18 tests on the same unit; 19

**•** That is reproducible, that similar results are 20 achieved when various persons or laboratories perform 21

the test; 22

**•** That it’s representative; 23

**•** That’s consistent with the typical energy 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 21 consumed by the products in the field; 1

**•** It’s not overly burdensome to conduct, meaning 2 that the test burden is justified to achieve the 3 necessary accuracy, repeatability of the overall 4

measurement; 5

**•** That it’s applicable to anticipated future 6 technologies to the best of our ability; 7

**•** That it discourages circumvention; 8

**•** That it cannot be easily gamed; 9

**•** That it’s unambiguous, that it’s clear enough 10 that there are no questions or items in the test 11 procedure that are open to interpretation. 12

**•** We also would like to harmonize with related test 13 procedures, and finally, 14

**•** We want to ensure that the test procedure is 15 consistent with our legal authority. 16 So the other thing that we do when we begin 17 the test procedure is we first look to other test 18 procedures that already exist. So this slide here 19 kind of shows what test procedures for set-top boxes 20 already exist and fade into our proposed regulatory 21 test procedure. So we looked at the draft CEA 2043, 22 which itself is based on the ANSI CEA 2022 test 23 procedure and ANSI 2013A test procedure. And we also 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 22 looked to the most recent specification for set-top 1 boxes from EnergyStar -- that was version 3.0, and 2 that itself was based on the IEC 62087 and the 3 Canadian standard CE 380-08. 4 So when we did this process we identified 5 that the draft CEA 2043 test procedure was an 6 appropriate basis to establish our DOE proposed test 7 procedure. However, there were quite a -- there are 8 several changes that DOE proposed that were different 9 from draft CEA 2043. Those changes were discussed in 10 the Federal Register publication, and actually 11 throughout today’s public meeting we will also be 12 identifying what some of those differences are. 13 The other thing that I would note is that 14 that draft CEA 2043 is currently in development and is 15 not yet been final. The version that was distributed 16 to the CEA working group on November 27 th was the 17 version that we based our comparison on. Since that 18 time, DOE is aware that there have been some 19 supplemental changes to draft CEA 2043, but for the 20 purposes of today’s meeting, we’re going to be 21 comparing it back to that draft version that was 22 submitted to vote on November 27 th

. 23 So that’s the overview of our rulemaking 24

process. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 23 **Scope** 1 I am now going to get into scope questions 2 of what products are covered within our scope. So, I 3 think to begin the scope conversation, it’s important 4 to begin with our proposed definition of a set-top 5 box, and that is, “A set-top box means a device 6 combining hardware components with software 7 programming designed for the primary purpose of 8 receiving television and related services from 9 terrestrial, cable, satellite, broadband, or local 10 networks, providing video output using at least one 11 direct video connection.” 12 And because of that requirement to provide 13 output using at least one direct video connection, we 14 also are proposing a definition for a direct video 15 connection, which is, “Any connection type that is one 16 of the following: high definition multimedia 17 interface, HDMI; component video; S-video; composite 18 video; or any other video interface that may be used 19 to output video content.” We’re also specifying and 20 proposing to add a definition for those specific 21 direct video types, and I think these are relatively 22 standardized definitions or references for HDMI, 23 component video, S-video, and composite video. 24 So to compare our definition of a set-top 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 24 box, and anything that meets this definition would be 1 in the scope of today’s rule, to the draft CEA 2043 2 definition of a set-top box, I think you note that 3 overall ours is a little bit more specific. We 4 specify the primary purpose. We use the term “primary 5 purpose” in our definition, and that primary purpose 6 is to receive television and related services. We 7 also include specifications of the networks for 8 receiving content, that it would be from terrestrial, 9 cable, satellite, broadband, or local networks. And 10 we specify the video connections where are we are 11 requiring at least one direct video connection, 12 whereas the draft CEA 2043 definition specifies 13 devices -- display device, recording device, or 14 clients. 15 Finally, our definition specifies that the 16 device contains both hardware and software as 17 components, whereas CEA draft 2043 does not specify 18 hardware or software as components. 19 In a couple slides we are having several 20 issue boxes and that will provide an opportunity for 21 comments, so let me just continue going through our 22 proposed scope, and we are going to open it up to the 23

floor. 24 So the reason for our proposed definition -- 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 25 the reason that we used the term “primary purpose” is 1 it’s DOE intent to exclude products like smart phones 2 and game consoles from the scope. So those devices 3 might otherwise meet the definition, but our intention 4 is that their primary purpose is something other than 5 receiving video signals and providing video output. 6 We certainly recognize that some of these devices are 7 trending to be more home entertainment centers, that 8 people are using smart phones in different ways, but 9 our intention for using the word “primary purpose” was 10 for these to be excluded from the scope. And we’ll 11 certainly be welcoming comment on that. 12 The other reason for our proposed definition 13 was to exclude devices that do not provide for direct 14 video output. So in order to be in scope, a device 15 needs to be capable of actually taking a video stream, 16 decoding that stream into raw video data and then 17 being able to send that data to a display device. 18 It’s not -- if it does not have at least one video 19 connection, then it’s not within the scope. 20 Obviously, if it does have one video connection, then 21 it is considered a set-top box. The reason for this 22 is to clearly separate a set-top box from other 23 devices that simply pass internet protocol traffic 24 between various devices. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 26 So, furthermore -- so the scope of coverage, 1 included products, set-top boxes, things that are 2 excluded from scope based on our definition or 3 proposed definition of set-top boxes include network 4 equipment, other infrastructure devices which include 5 optical network terminals (ONTs), low-noise block 6 downconverters, (LNBs), outdoor units (ODUs). 7 So in the preliminary coverage 8 determination, we covered set-top boxes and network 9 equipment. With this proposed rule, we are proposing 10 to exclude network equipment from the scope because of 11 differences in functionality and use of network 12 equipment as compared to set-top box, and we recognize 13 that to have a representative test for network 14 equipment, it would essentially take a completely 15 different set of procedures to establish a test since 16 they are used in such different ways. However, I do 17 want to stress that DOE will continue to evaluate that 18 need for a test procedure for network equipment 19 separately. 20 Again, the definition of a set-top box, and 21 just thus the scope of our proposed test procedure. 22 It’s just a proposal at this time, and we are urging 23 stakeholders to submit comments, and where 24 appropriate, suggest new definitions if they disagree 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 27 with our proposed definition and scope. Furthermore, 1 we are proposing to exclude infrastructure devices -- 2 LNBs, ONTs, ODUs, because of the complexity associated 3 with these equipment and significant operational 4 differences from set-top boxes, we’re proposing not to 5 include them. However, within the test procedure we 6 are providing setup requirements for these 7 infrastructure devices in order to test set-top boxes 8 that require the use of them. 9 So that is the overview of our scope, and at 10 this time we have several slides with issues for 11 discussion. We will begin with this issue A and you 12 could comment on any of these bullets, 13

**•** requesting comment on the proposed definition, in 14 particular, 15

**•** comment on whether the proposed definition is 16 specific enough to exclude non-set-top box devices 17 such as gaming consoles and smart phones, yet broad 18 enough to cover traditional set-top boxes and newer 19 devices, meaning devices based on current technology 20 or anticipated future technologies, 21

**•** and we’re also requesting comment on the proposed 22 definition for direct video connection, HDMI, 23 composite video, S-video and component video. 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 28 MR. BROOKMAN: I saw Gary first. Gary. 1 MR. LANGILLE: Hi this is Gary from -- who 2 am I from? Echostar. I just wanted to make the 3 general comment that clearly the current definition in 4 CEA 2043 most likely had an error that it did not 5 identify the primary purpose, and we think that’s an 6 extremely valid point that DOE’s making and in fact I 7 believe that the review of the NOPR comments as part 8 of the CEA process has already incorporated some 9 aspects of the proposed definition by DOE. 10 I do want to raise just one question, it 11 doesn’t have to be answered now, just to put on the 12 list, that the current definition, by indicating that 13 the -- it has to provide video using at least one of 14 these direct video connection interfaces will exclude 15 what the industry would call a headless device, and I 16 just wanted to raise that so DOE can assess did they 17 mean to do that or do they need to think about further 18 modification. Currently as written, it would exclude 19 the headless device. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: What is that? 21 MR. LANGILLE: What I would mean by that is, 22 for instance, I could build a whole household system 23 that connects to the TVs by way of -- very common on 24 new TVs, internet connection or Ethernet connection, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 29 and I’d never have to fall under this. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Adam. 2 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Adam Goldberg for TiVo. 3 So, I have two comments, but first and primarily to 4 follow up on what Gary said. The proposed definition 5 for the direct video output says any other video 6 interface. And it strikes me that either says 7 nothing, or includes everything. What I’m trying to 8 get at is, for example, DIRECTV is espousing a system 9 called RVU, R-V-U, which is essentially a video 10 interface over IP. And I think the similar sort of 11 system used by my friends at Dish and Echostar is 12 different, but similar enough. And there’s probably a 13 handful of ways to do this, and I expect that either 14 Kuriacose or Gary, either one would be very happy if 15 TVs typically had an interface that directly supported 16 those connections which would -- I mean this is how 17 things like HDMI come about, is people start including 18 it and then everybody includes it, and then it’s 19 commonly used by consumers. 20 So either “any other video interface” is 21 going to include things like RVU, or it’s not. And if 22 it doesn’t, then I’m not sure what it does rope in. 23 And if it does, then I think it ropes in everything. 24 So perhaps some additional thought needs to be put on 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 30 the catch-all at the end of the definition. 1 And then second, and maybe a little less 2 vital from my perspective, is some guidance on what 3 primary purpose is, you know, 51 percent? 80 percent? 4 At some point, somebody’s going to have to make a 5 judgment about whether, for example, a play station, 6 is primarily video or not. And, you know, I point you 7 to the press releases about the press reports on PS4, 8 which may be a streaming video player with a remote 9 control. Thank you. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: As we go along today, it 11 would be helpful if, in addition to citing what you 12 object to that’s being presented, you could also 13 describe what the solution is, what the fix is. That 14 would be helpful. So for that one? 15 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Well, we haven’t had a 16 long time to think about this. I’ll be glad to 17 provide that in our comments. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. That’s great. That’s 19 very useful. Noah. 20 MR. HOROWITZ: Sure. I’d like to address 21 the part in the comment box here about whether or not 22 the proposed test method, the scope, would work 23 sufficiently looking forward towards newer boxes. And 24 I want to echo what Gary said. These headless -- the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 31 term headless gateways -- imagine you have a whole 1 home set-top box that may include additional 2 functionality, whether it’s a TV, a modem, or a router 3 -- all that will be in one box servicing the home. 4 These were prominently shown at the recent Consumer 5 Electronic Show and may well be the main type of box 6 deployed within the next few years which would well be 7 within the life of this test method. So we want to 8 make sure those type of set-top boxes would be 9 included. As we understand the current definition and 10 scope, they would not be included because they do not 11 have a video output. These would probably have some 12 sort of home network interface, whether it’s through a 13 Ethernet cable, wireless, or something we haven’t even 14 thought about today. So we think the scope and 15 definition needs to include those boxes. And we think 16 there is a way, we don’t have it today, but we’ll work 17 with others to develop it, to modify the definition at 18 the end of this in such a way that those would be 19 covered, but we still think there’s a way to do it 20 without unintended consequences of pulling in smart 21 phones and tablets and things like that which are 22 clearly not set-top boxes the way DOE intends. Thank 23

you. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Paul. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 32 MR. GLIST: Paul Glist. On the same theme 1 of the gateway devices without a direct video 2 connection. Although you know that we’re not keen on 3 this proceeding, we think that you actually got it 4 right in taking out what we would call the gateway 5 that doesn’t happen to video connect, for many of the 6 same reasons that you have excluded a number of other 7 pieces of network equipment due to their complexity 8 and variation and the like. I would add a supportive 9 reason for maintaining that course, that I know that 10 the Department has never wanted its rules to interfere 11 with the very rapid innovation in this space. I can’t 12 say that Noah is right, that these are going to take 13 over the world in the next year or two. I don’t think 14 so, but I do know that there’s a great degree of 15 variation in the R&D going in to that right now, and 16 it would add infinitely to the complexity of this test 17 method to include them. 18 What I would suggest as a concrete 19 suggestion is that the language is very clear in 20 saying what is included, and I take Adam’s point that 21 the vague “any other video connect” should be 22 clarified away. But if you just say a gateway that 23 doesn’t have HDMI, Component, Composite, S-video, 24 you’re out. It would add a lot of clarity because our 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 33 technical people working with this document are 1 looking for that level of clarity. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Robert. 3 MR. TURNER: I would tend to again agree 4 that the -- same remark as the definition of headless 5 gateways which are becoming prevalent in industry, to 6 add something on the lines of HDMI, et cetera, or a 7 recorded stream to a client which feeds out HDMI, et 8 cetera, would probably cover it. Otherwise, you’ll 9 end up with a document that’s a dinosaur, it’s 10 obsolete by the time it’s enforced, and that’s not 11 going to help. So I’m keen that we all have a level 12 playing field, and we all are under the same rules, 13 that we do need to include new technologies. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Gregg. 15 MR. HARDY: Gregg Hardy, California IOUs. I 16 did want to throw out a possible solution for how to 17 exclude products that we don’t want to include, DOE 18 doesn’t want included, which is to list defining 19 elements of the products that should be excluded, for 20 example, you know, set-top box cannot have a cell 21 phone antenna, and we can define with some specificity 22 what a cell phone antenna is. Or, set-top box cannot 23 run a desktop operating system, like Windows, MacOS, 24 or Linux, and so on down the list of items that we 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 34 want to exclude. Just a proposal. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. You can see the 2

comment boxes there. 3 MR. DOMMU: And we actually on this next 4 slide we have a couple additional issue boxes, and I 5 think some of these do overlap with the prior issue 6 boxes, but I’ll read through them in case there are 7 any additional comments on issue B or C here. And 8 that is requesting comment on 9

**•** narrowing the scope of today’s rulemaking to 10 exclude, to set-top boxes and excluding network 11 equipment, and also 12

**•** requesting comment on narrowing the scope of 13 today’s rulemaking to set-top boxes and excluding 14 infrastructure devices. 15 And again, going back to Doug’s comment, if 16 you do support developing a test procedure for other 17 infrastructure devices, it would be very helpful if 18 you could provide additional information or comment on 19 what test procedures and standard configurations 20 should be used on how those types of devices should be 21 tested. So is there any other comments related to 22 these issue boxes? 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Noah. 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 35 MR. HOROWITZ: Noah Horowitz, NRDC. We’re 1 in agreement with DOE’s proposal to not include small 2 network equipment at this time. However, we think DOE 3 should move forward on set-top boxes in an expeditious 4 way, so do that first and then revisit small network 5 equipment, not close the door on that for the future. 6 Keep it as part of the scope. 7 And the conversation we had a moment ago, to 8 the extent that a box is a set-top box and it has 9 small network equipment functionality, that box should 10 be covered. So that’s kind of a hybrid approach here. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. DOMMU: Okay. Thank you. And I would 13 state, as I said before, that we will continue to 14 evaluate the need for a test procedure for network 15 equipment. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Robert. 17

MR. TURNER: Just to come back to Noah. If 18 we start saying a box with networking is included, 19 then we’re going to have unintended consequences of 20 making two products with higher energy consumption to 21 keep -- because one product by itself can’t make the 22 limits. So if there’s exclusions or extra functions 23 included, they need to have some sort of allowance to 24 make sure that we still drive the power consumption of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 36 the whole home downwards. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Noah. 2 MR. HOROWITZ: Just a quick clarification. 3 I agree with Robert that we want to be able to measure 4 these devices and to the extent additional allowances 5 are warranted, that’s an open discussion. Here we’re 6 just trying to figure out how to measure things. So 7 I’m not in disagreement with you, and we do want to 8 move to whole home if it can save energy. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Final comments on this series 10 of boxes. Okay. 11 MR. DOMMU: Okay. So the next topic is the 12 definition of a basic model for the set-top box. So 13 according to our Code of Federal Regulations, a basic 14 model means all units of a given type of covered 15 products or class thereof, manufactured by one 16 manufacturer, having the same principal energy source 17 and which have essentially identical electrical, 18 physical, and functional or hydraulic characteristics 19 and affects energy consumption, energy efficiency, 20 water consumption, or water efficiency. 21 So obviously, this is a broad definition in 22 scope, but as this definition applies to what is a 23 basic model for a set-top box, the identical 24 electrical, physical and functional characteristics 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 37 would include software download and hardware 1 integration for the proposed definition of a set-top 2 box. It also would mean that the same multi-streaming 3 and DVR functionality would constitute a basic model. 4 So -- this is because the hardware components and 5 software programming can change the functional or 6 physical characteristics of the box that affect energy 7 consumption and energy efficiency. Thus, in order for 8 multiple set-top boxes to be in the same basic model, 9 they must have essentially the same software download 10 and hardware integration. 11 So at this point we would identify comment 12 and discussion of basic model as it pertains to set13 top boxes. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Gregg. 15 MR. HARDY: Gregg Hardy. I would propose 16 that -- I have a concern that say a Motorola box 17 running Motorola test software might be considered a 18 basic model, even though downstream from that in the 19 supply chain, it would be loaded with say, Comcast 20 software or Time Warner Application software. Then I 21 know later on in the NOPR it articulates that to do 22 the testing you have to configure the box in the field 23 per the service provider’s instructions. So I don’t 24 think there’s a risk with the test procedure not 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 38 testing with that final software, but I think that 1 maybe there’s just a little bit of ambiguity that 2 could be clarified here today that a basic model has 3 the same hardware and field-deployable software, or 4 something like that. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Paul. 6 MR. GLIST: Paul Glist. Do you have a sense 7 -- given that you tend to treat as different basic 8 models each different combination of hardware and 9 software. Is it your intention, then, to distinguish 10 boxes by not just service provider who has a different 11 guide, but also with applications that are 12 subsequently downloaded to the box as those service 13 providers innovate in services? And if that’s the 14 level of precision that you’re looking for, how many 15 models are you estimating are out there in scope for 16 this approach? 17 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, well, I would put it back 18 on you and certainly suggest that you provide comment 19 if the definition of a basic model is ambiguous. But 20 we welcome your recommendations. 21 MR. GLIST: I understand you welcome 22 recommendations and I aim to give you comments. I’m 23 asking for the Department’s understanding of this 24 approach. Are you saying we are slicing the market 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 39 into all of the permutations and combinations of 1 hardware and software. Each one is a distinct model. 2 And so in the world of standards that you allude to in 3 this NOPR, each one would be subject to a different 4 standard. Is that what you’re seeing in this 5

document? 6 MR. DOMMU: Well, I think what we’re saying 7 is that we recognize that software is a component of 8 set-top boxes, and that software loaded onto the set9 top box could affect the energy consumption or energy 10 efficiency of that box, so to the extent that the 11 energy consumption or efficiency changes, then that 12 could have impact on whether or not it’s a basic 13

model. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Adam. 15 MR. A. GOLDBERG: So -- Adam Goldberg for 16 TiVo. I’m a little confused how a retail device would 17 do this. For example, if I build a box with version 18 one of the software, and I advertise it as consuming a 19 certain amount of power, but it’s version one of the 20 software. I make these -- I print up these boxes to 21 box up the devices and it’s months and months in the 22 supply chain and sitting on the shelf and eventually 23 making it to somebody’s house and then they connect it 24 up to the internet and it gets version three of the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 40 software. What -- how -- I mean, so the box -- the 1 set-top box in the cardboard box on the shelf may have 2 a power number attached to it, but as soon as you plug 3 it in, it’s going to have a different power number, 4 and I wonder how -- am I going to need to be, a, 5 changing the printed box, the cardboard box and 6 literature every time I update the software, number 7 one? And number two, how do I advise -- how would I 8 need to advise the consumer that the power consumed is 9 going to have a slightly different number when it gets 10 updated software? 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Ashley. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: So can I ask a question of 13 you before we attempt to potentially answer the 14 question? 15

MR. A. GOLDBERG: Yes. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right now if you were to 17 say, like in your scenario where you said you had 18 boxes on the shelf at a retailer, and they have 19 version one software, as you know, a certain energy 20 consumption with the given software you loaded it from 21 the point of manufacture. Say that inventory was 22 depleted and when you guys came out with a version 23 3.0, the new ones you were shipping from the point of 24 manufacture, not the ones that were sitting on the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 41 shelf that may now be deployed, but wouldn’t the new 1 ones coming from your factory have the version three 2 with the latest software that you also intend to 3 download in the house? 4

MR. A. GOLDBERG: So there are sort of two 5 scenarios. One is that we ship -- that one would ship 6 boxes with what amounts to boot loader software, 7 something that’s enough to have it be alive and 8 download whatever the latest version is. So in that 9 case, the box on the shelf, you know, shrug about what 10 its power consumption would be. But second, yeah, 11 okay, well, I mean when new software gets released, 12 maybe there’s a change made in the manufacturing of 13 the boxes so that they would get the latest software. 14 That’s not always the case. But whichever happens, 15 how do I deal with the fact that if I want to put a 16 power number on the box, and the power number depends 17 on the software version -- we’ve disconnected the 18 model from the power consumption. Because -- because, 19 you know, the cardboard gets printed in large volumes 20 well in advance, essentially. 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is Ashley from DOE. I 22 think we -- I see where the need for clarity is, or at 23 least where the questions arise. I mean, ultimately, 24 you’ll see when we go through the setup that the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 42 testing has to be run more or less with the software 1 as installed as it would be in the field. So if 2 you’re just loading bootup software or some bare 3 minimum of software with the acknowledgement that that 4 software will get automatically updated in the field, 5 the test number is going to be representative of the 6 field software. 7 Now, the question becomes that is ever8 changing, and where do you draw the line for the 9 number on the box, so I get that part. But I don’t 10 think it’s an issue of what software is sitting on the 11 floor at the point of manufacture, it’s going to be at 12 what point, you know, do we draw the line for the 13 number on the box. So I get your point that we need 14 to provide clarity, but I think it can be done. 15 MR. A. GOLDBERG: It’s -- sorry, it’s a bit 16 of a different question like how -- like a service 17 provider would operate, you know, because I mean 18 Comcast has Comcast software, and that’s fine. But in 19 a retail environment, if I’m selling a box at retail 20 that works nationwide, it’s dependent on the software 21 it’s got, sure, but it’s not dependent on which 22 network it’s installed on. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Gregg. 24 MR. HARDY: This raises an important 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 43 question and I think it’s going to be very difficult 1 to grapple with, which is, is it DOE’s intent to 2 provide a regulation that ensures that boxes will be 3 maintained in a configuration that meets the 4 regulation, or just that initial deployment of that 5 box? And if that is the case, then, you know, DOE has 6 to look at and see which entities out there -- service 7 providers, manufacturers -- can be responsible for 8 that credibly, and so that’s a question that I either 9 raise here for discussion or for consideration. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Neal. 11 MR. N. GOLDBERG: Neal Goldberg, NCTA. Do 12 you have a position on that? I’m not sure from your 13 question? Are you advocating one way or the other? 14 MR. HARDY: I don’t have a position. I 15 think it’s going to be very difficult. I’ll just say 16 a few examples where I do have a thought. One is, so 17 for a major service provider, like Comcast, who writes 18 the application software for their box, it seems to me 19 that Comcast ought to be responsible for the initial 20 deployment of that box meeting the regulation, or 21 continued. I’d like to explore ways that Comcast 22 could have continued responsibility for ensuring that 23 the box meet the regulation. 24 Just one more point. I think it gets more 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 44 complicated when you consider scenarios where you’ve 1 got a bunch of small service providers, say small 2 telcos that are buying a standard configuration of a 3 Cisco IPTV box with media room loaded on it, that 4 those small service providers sort of can’t possibly 5 be responsible for -- they’re not actually dictating 6 the configuration of that box. And there are many out 7 there. So there may be situations where the 8 responsible party is say the hardware manufacturer or 9 even the software manufacturer like Microsoft. I’m 10 raising a complexity here without knowing -- 11 MR. N. GOLDBERG: There’s no question -- 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Use the microphone. 13 MR. N. GOLDBERG: There’s no question this 14 is a complex area. This is Neal Goldberg, NCTA. But 15 -- and whether the provider is large or small, don’t 16 you think that would have an inhibiting effect on 17 innovation? You’ve got these boxes in the field and 18 they could be downloaded with various program guides 19 or who knows what’s going to happen in the future. 20

MR. HARDY: I’m sure concerned that that 21 would limit innovation. I think there are a bunch of 22 constraints here that we’re trying to grapple with and 23

that’s one of them. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 45 MR. LANGILLE: I just wanted to ask a 1 clarifying question, is, because I’m not sure how to 2 advise or construct a comment on this definition. 3 What’s this going to be used for? I don’t understand 4 the reason for defining a basic model. So if you 5 could help us understand that, we might be able to 6 give you better comments. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: So the way we -- this is 8 Ashley from DOE. The way regulations are currently 9 constructed is we define a basic model for the 10 purposes of manufacturers to determine what needs to 11 be tested and what needs to be -- what can be grouped 12 together for the purposes of ratings. So what it 13 allows you to do is give you some flexibility in not 14 testing every single different model that you may 15 have. If you have multiple models, say one is -- I 16 mean I’ll use the simplest example -- one is black, 17 one is silver, but all the functional characteristics 18 are the same, the rating would be the same coming out 19 of the test procedure, you don’t have to test the 20 black model, you don’t have to test the silver model. 21 Group them together and call them the basic model. 22 Obviously, the definition provides a little 23 bit more leeway than just something as simple as that. 24 But you could group together multiple individual 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 46 models for the purposes of reducing your testing 1 burden. But they would have to have the same rating 2 coming out of the test procedure. That’s the idea. 3 Now, how it translates to the set-top box 4 world is the issue at hand. This was our shot at it, 5 and we obviously welcome feedback from you guys since 6 you know best on how you do your models and software 7 and all the variations that are out there that there 8 may be. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Pardon me, Chuck, you’re 10

next. 11 MR. SAMUELS: Chuck Samuels, CEA. The 12 preceding conversation I just think points out the 13 slippery slope that any discussion of test procedures 14 immediately gets you into how it will be implemented 15 in standards. And although it’s quite troubling that 16 the Department has not been transparent about this, it 17 hasn’t even today explained why it’s proceeding with 18 the test procedure rulemaking, I think it’s pretty 19 obvious it’s because it, although it’s unannounced, it 20 has an intent to move forward on standards, even 21 though the many, many comments that were received in 22 the covered product proceeding have not yet been 23 resolved or even responded to by the Department. So I 24 just -- I just want to point out that the technical 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 47 discussion is fine, but from my point of view, it 1 seems pretty obvious where this is heading, and I 2 think it’s quite troubling. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Gary. 4 MR. LANGILLE: Just one last, I guess, 5 comment now. So I -- you know, even with the iPhone, 6 I mean, like I think the last update I got was because 7 it was a quick update from Apple because the last one 8 caused the power consumption to go up excessively and 9 was running everyone’s battery down. So is it that 10 we’re trying to rate -- is it that we’re trying to 11 rate it initially with an as shipped set of 12 applications or something? Because I fully expect, in 13 fact our current set-top box has a whole applications 14 environment. It has Facebook. It has, you know, it’s 15 going to have all the applications I have on my 16 iPhone. We haven’t quite released yet the tool kit 17 and opened it up to thousands of developers, but 18 that’s just because we haven’t had enough time. But 19 it will happen. So I think that we’ll all have to 20 think about, you know, what is a rating mean? I’m not 21

sure. 22 MS. SANFORD: This is Jen Sanford with 23 Cisco. Does a rating mean max power that the device 24 is capable of? So regardless -- I just -- I don’t 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 48 know where this is heading or how meaningful it is to 1 provide that information. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: The rating would be the 3 number that’s coming out of the test procedure. To 4 the extent that corresponds with max power, you know, 5 it’s probably not going to, right, because we do a 6 variety of different things. I’m not arguing it 7 should or shouldn’t, but I’m just saying the rating’s 8 going to be based on the test procedure and the 9 several units that you would have to test to come up 10 with an individual rating. And it should be 11 representative of what we would say a consumer used in 12 the field. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert first. 14 MR. TURNER: The max power is for safety 15 reasons, the absolute maximum loading which includes 16 any peripherals attached, so USB ports, you load 17 those, LNB you load, so it’s going to be much, much 18 higher than your test procedure. 19 Second point, in Europe, the way we’ve 20 tackled it in the European Voluntary Agreement and in 21 the Code of Conduct which has been around for ten 22 years, we express the manufacturer declares based on 23 the first deployed software in the field. If the 24 service provider changes the software, then he has to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 49 make a separate declaration based on new software. We 1 don’t expect every single iteration of software to be 2 changed, just if major functionalities change. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Noah. 4 MR. HOROWITZ: This is Noah Horowitz. I 5 want to echo the comment made by Gregg Hardy in terms 6 of need for field deployable software. So this 7 particular box might come out of a set-top box 8 manufacturer’s factory and then either at that factory 9 or at the service provider, additional software may be 10 installed prior to deployment. We want to make sure 11 that’s captured. And then when we’re talking setup 12 conditions, which I understand is separate but related 13 to this point, this box on service provider A might 14 give 20 watts and may or may not go to sleep or fast 15 resume, and if it’s tested on a different service 16 provider, it would get -- you could potentially get a 17 different answer. So we would think those are 18 different models and how this relates to the 19 definition of basic model, I think we need to take a 20 look at. Thank you. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Matt. 22

MR. MALINOWSKI: Just one more comment. I 23 think there’s a question about basic model and how 24 that relates to everything in this matter, so I think 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 50 it needs to tie into the sampling plan. I think, in 1 particular, what was proposed was that a higher value 2 be reported so perhaps the issue is not having to 3 report the same value as the software is upgraded, but 4 making sure that the measure -- the AEC does not 5 increase past what was initially reported. I don’t 6 know if that’s -- that’s something that will be 7 discussed later in the day, but may play into it. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Paul. 9 MR. GLIST: I’m not sure I understood your 10 point, Matt. Are you putting forward the idea that 11 the initial test results serve as a cap on the total 12 consumption of any subsequent software download? Or 13 are you saying something else? 14 MR. MALINOWSKI: That’s how I, at least, 15 read the sampling plan, the portion of the NOPR. So I 16 guess I welcome maybe some discussion or clarification 17

on that. 18 MR. GLIST: So if it reads that way to you, 19 it illustrates Mr. Samuels’ point that we have rapidly 20 progressed from something that is advertising itself 21 as agnostic to standards and caps and has power and 22 all the rest. We’re just doing this to be uniform in 23 measurement into something that is actually a cap on 24 software upgrades and downloading software for whole 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 51 home energy management or anything else. Where is 1 this going? Ashley? 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is Ashley from DOE. I 3 actually disagree with you because, you know, what the 4 sampling plan is supposed to do is provide a rating 5 for a given box. And I get there’s questions around 6 what does that really represent? Is it the initial 7 software download? Is it the software download over 8 the lifetime of the box? And these are the issues the 9 Department is grappling with, hopefully with your 10 input. But what it does make you do is put a rating 11 on the box, but we are not specific as to whether 12 that’s the initial rating or a lifetime rating -- so 13 that issue is open, obviously. But what it doesn’t do 14 is set a hard cap period. There is no mention of a 15 level or a cap in the document. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 17 MR. LANGILLE: Yeah, I was just going to 18 mention that to a certain extent, all us manufacturers 19 are struggling with this right now with the EnergyStar 20 program, because, you know, we have to test the 21 product, but when you actually list it, everyone 22 actually fudges the numbers because there is an audit 23 done, independent audit by a certification lab, and if 24 you fail, you lose your listing. And no one wants to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 52 risk that. So it sort of brings into, you know, you 1 do a test procedure but then you sort of just guess at 2 how much you should increment it so that you don’t -- 3 maybe you’re below the EPA limit, but you’re above 4 what it actually uses, so you don’t get caught in the 5 field and in some kind of an audit problem or 6 something. So, it would be nice if we could come up 7 with a method that takes the guesswork out of all that 8 so we all know how to approach it. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: You want to respond first, 10 Ashley? 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: No, that’s okay. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Gregg first, and then Jeff. 13 MR. HARDY: I just wanted to express support 14 for the approach that Robert mentioned as being taken 15 in Europe, where you test with the initial software 16 and for major updates, you retest. I think that’s 17 sort of a practical approach to this. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Jeff. 19 MR. SAMUELS: I just wanted to clarify that 20 when Gary uses the term fudge, I think what he means 21 is conservative rating. 22 MS. SANFORD: This is Jen with Cisco. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Jen, please. Go ahead. 24 MS. SANFORD: I would also support the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 53 approach that Europe took in both the voluntary 1 agreement and a code of conduct by industry, which was 2 industry-led in concert with energy stakeholders and 3 the government, and the government ended up 4 recognizing the leadership that industry provided in 5 that area. I’d like to see a similar type of dynamic 6

here. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: To Robert’s point, your 8 general description of how Europe does it in terms of 9 re-rating and based on major changes that would be 10 more consumptive is DOE’s general position for most 11 consumer appliances is that -- and commercial 12 appliances -- it’s much easier to see changes in a 13 refrigerator as compared to software. So I guess the 14 question to all of you when you write your comments 15 is, you know, how does that concept really translate 16 to your world? 17 MS. SANFORD: We’re supporting it. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens. 19 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I just -- 20 I think it’s possible to actually arrive at a 21 definition of a basic model and a test methodology 22 that covers first deployments when they’re first put 23 in the field, but I’m fairly certain that most of the 24 appliances in my house are using more energy than they 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 54 did when they were first deployed. The reasons vary 1 for that, of course. But one of the most important 2 things you can do, based on some old research I did, 3 is to have a piece of equipment that’s continually 4 upgradable, forever. From a resource perspective, 5 that’s a really good thing even if some of those 6 upgrades do result in a modest increase in energy use 7 in the field, not replacing the box is a huge thing. 8 There are energy and other resource savings in not 9 having to do that. So it doesn’t bother me that there 10 might be modest increases in energy use from software 11 upgrades down the road. But I would like to know when 12 it’s first deployed, in comparison to other devices 13 that are first deployed, what does it look like? What 14 is its energy use? So I think there’s a way to do 15 this, and I’m confident the Department can do this 16 without wandering off into the weeds over what happens 17 five years down the road. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I think we’ve 19 covered this now, right? We’re going to move on. 20 MR. DOMMU: Okay. So the next topic we want 21 to discuss is the definition of a manufacturer in 22 terms of set-top boxes. So, the Energy Policy and 23 Conservation Act defines the term “manufacture” as “to 24 manufacturer, produce, assemble, or import.” And 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 55 furthermore, any person that manufactures a device 1 that meets the proposed definition of a set-top box 2 would be considered a manufacturer under DOE’s 3 regulation. So if you’re a person or an entity that 4 manufactures a device that combines hardware 5 components with software programming designed for the 6 primary purpose of receiving television or related 7 services, from terrestrial, cable, satellite, 8 broadband, or local networks, providing video output 9 using at least one direct video connection, then you 10 would be considered a manufacturer of a set-top box. 11 So that concludes conversation around scope, 12 and now I’m going to move into a summary of the 13 proposed test procedure and then we will get into more 14 of the details. 15 **Summary of NOPR** 16 So this chart here shows kind of the summary 17 of everything that we’re proposing today. I’m going 18 to provide a high level overview of our test 19 procedure, and then I will hand it over to Mansi 20 Thakkar and Allen Tsao will be providing more details, 21 and I suggest I’m just going to go through this 22 quickly, but I encourage you to reserve your comments 23 and some discussion for the detailed conversation 24

that’s to follow. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 56 So the first thing that we do in 1 establishing the test procedure is identify the scope 2 and propose the definitions. Obviously, we just had 3 the entire scope conversation, and we will begin by 4 proposing which definitions we’ll be proposing to add 5 to the regulation. 6 We then go into the test conditions and 7 measurement criteria, that specifies the required test 8 conditions and measurement capabilities specifically. 9 Video subscription, installation of the set-top box, 10 room conditions, power requirements, test equipment 11 and measurement accuracy. We also provide 12 instructions on how to set up the room conditions and 13 test units, so we’ll probably get into all of that. 14 The next step is to connect, display devices 15 and clients. So based on the capabilities or 16 functionality of the set-top box, we are proposing to 17 hook up display devices or clients -- and we will get 18 into a proposal of exactly how we’re proposing to do 19

that. 20 We then get into, once the test setup and 21 connections are all made, then we’ll get into on, 22 sleep, and off mode test. The on mode test, we are 23 proposing two tests, an on watch TV test, which 24 essentially is measuring the power consumption when 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 57 the set-top box is in a state that’s watching TV, and 1 we also have a multi-stream on mode test. And again 2 based on the capabilities of the set-top box, we are 3 proposing to use multiple streams at once based on 4 that functionality of the set-top box and record its 5 power consumption. That’s a single multi-stream test 6 and there’s a table that has an order of priority that 7 we will get into on exactly which streams should be 8

enabled for that test. 9 We then have two sleep mode tests, a manual 10 sleep mode test where you simply turn the set-top box 11 into sleep mode using the remote control or external 12 signal and measure the power consumption. And we also 13 are proposing an auto power down test for set-top box 14 that is capable of automatically powering down and 15 that test would measure the power consumption in that 16

mode. 17 We finally have an off mode test then. The 18 Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires that we 19 have an off mode test so that we recognize that not 20 all set-top boxes are capable of entering that mode, 21 and then those are all of our power consumption tests. 22 We then, on this last line here, we go into 23 the different calculations, so first we provide 24 instructions on how to calculate the rated power 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 58 consumption, and this is the mathematical formula and 1 description of how to convert the data of the power 2 consumption into the required test results. Testing 3 has to be performed at least twice and so to calculate 4 the representative power consumption, you either take 5 the mean of the test performed, or calculate the upper 6 confidence limit, which is the representative power, 7 or whichever is higher. So we will get into that 8

later on. 9 Once you have calculated the rated power 10 consumption in each mode of operation, we provide 11 instructions on how to calculate the annual energy 12 consumption. So you’re taking the rated power 13 consumption and you are applying usage profile which 14 we will get into in order to calculate what the 15 anticipated or estimate annual energy consumption is, 16 and we’re calling that metric the AEC. 17 Finally, we are including a test which is 18 called the sleep to on mode transition time test, and 19 the reason we’re doing that is because our sleep mode 20 test or definition of sleep mode requires the set-top 21 box to be capable of transitioning from sleep to on 22 within 30 seconds, so that test is provided in order 23 to ensure that that 30 second requirement is met, 24 although there’s not a required output of the time 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 59 that it takes, it’s rather a function of that mode. 1

So again, that is the high level summary and 2 overview of our test procedure and we are going 3 through, throughout the remainder of the day, get into 4 a lot more detail, starting with definitions and 5 working our way through all of these aspects of the 6

test. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: A few individuals have 8 indicated that maybe we should take a short break. So 9 I’d suggest we do that now. There’s a lot of rather 10 detailed content for us to cover here. It’s now 11 10:25. Let’s take a 15 minute break which means we’ll 12 resume at 10:40. You must wear this badge if you’re 13 going to walk around the Forrestal Building. There 14

are restrooms at both ends of the hall. There’s a 15 coffee shop down on the ground floor about directly 16 underneath us. Go to the elevator bank, go down to 17 the ground floor, hang a left and go quickly so we can 18

resume at 10:40. 19 (Whereupon, at 10:25 a.m., the meeting was 20 recessed for a 15 minute period, and reconvened at 21 10:40 a.m.) 22 MR. BROOKMAN: We’re going to start back up 23 and we’re going to hear from Mansi. 24 MS. THAKKAR: Thanks, Doug. Good morning, 25 everyone. I’m Mansi Thakkar from Navigant, and I’ll 26Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 60 be presenting the next three sections. I’ll discuss 1 the definitions proposed in the test procedure, the 2 test conditions and set up for performing the test, and 3 the test methods for measuring power consumption in the 4 on, sleep and off modes. 5 **Definitions** 6 Starting with the definitions, DOE proposes 7 to adopt definitions for all the terms listed on this 8 slide verbatim from the draft CEA standard. 9 Additionally, DOE’s also proposing to adopt definitions 10 for digital video recorder or DVR, display device, and 11 home network interface or HNI, from CEA standard. 12 We’re drafting information beyond what is specified in 13 the standard. DOE is also proposing new definitions 14 for two terms, content provider and multi-stream. 15 We look at each of these five terms in more 16 detail now. 17 For the definition of DVR, DOE is proposing 18 to adopt the CEA definition and is proposing to include 19 the requirement that the hard disk drive must be 20 integrated into the set-top box. This is not 21 explicitly stated in the definition specified in the 22 CEA standard. DOE is proposing this to explicitly 23 state that if the hard disk drive is not integrated 24 into the set-top box it is not considered a DVR capable 25 set-top box for the purposes of this rulemaking. And 26 it should not be tested as a set-top box with DVR 27 capability. This requirement is also consistent with 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 61 what was specified in version 3.0 of the EnergyStar 1 specification. 2 We are proposing this requirement for a few 3

reasons. 4

**•** First, the power consumption of the set-top box 5 will vary based on the hard disk drive that is 6 used for testing such boxes. 7

**•** External storage devices are generally optional 8 and are therefore are not always provided with the 9 set-top box. 10

**•** Finally, standard hard disk drives for testing 11 such set-top boxes are not defined and so 12 repeatability of the test is a concern when 13 testing with an external hard disk. 14 If DOE tests set-top boxes with external hard 15 disks as DVR set-top boxes, it will either consider 16 specifying a standard storage device that should be 17 used for testing, or it would specify that the set-top 18 box should be tested with an external hard disk that it 19 is shipped with. 20 So at this time, DOE requests comment on the 21 proposed requirement that set-top boxes with external 22 storage devices should not be tested as DVR capable 23 set-top boxes. Also, if stakeholders indicate, that 24 such set-top boxes should be tested as DVR set-top 25 boxes, then DOE requests comment on the proper external 26 storage device that should be used for testing. 27Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 62 MR. BROOKMAN: Which of you two wants to go 1 first? Gary, go ahead. 2 MR. LANGILLE: Just a general comment that I 3 think that -- I’m predicting that industry won’t accept 4 text as DOE has proposed. If the intent for DOE to 5 insert integrated into the STB as a means to trigger 6 certain tests to be done and, you know, behavior and 7 measurement, I think maybe there’s a better way to do 8 that, because whether a device is actually integrated 9 in or shipped in the box with the device and you’re 10 told to plug it in when it gets there, to me that’s all 11 irrelevant. So I think we’ll submit some comments and 12 try to suggest some language that accomplishes similar 13 goals perhaps. 14 We also, I think, don’t want to define -- by 15 mistake define a DVR as having to have a disk inside 16 the box or it can’t be called a DVR, because there’s 17 lots of technology on the way where you may not have a 18 disk and still get the same functionality. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Noah. Actually -- 20 pardon me -- Paul was next in the queue. Paul. 21 Please. 22 MR. GLIST: I would observe for you that 23 there is no other functionality that you have required 24 to be resident in the box in order for the box to be 25 meeting various primary functions -- navigation, guide, 26 tuning, all of those things could be in the network, 27 they could be in the cloud, and they could still meet 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 63 the definition of a box. And so I question in the 1 context of real set-top boxes on a real service 2 provider networks, where the recording functionality is 3 in the network and can be tested in a repeatable 4 fashion, why you would set up a structural disincentive 5 for energy efficiencies where you can save the consumer 6 residential power and you would be able to market it as 7 a better solution than something with a spinning disk. 8 So we would also be submitting comments, 9 questioning this approach. But I would raise this to a 10 higher level, that this is one of many illustrations of 11 why a DOE testing method which edges into a standards12 making, is not the right approach for this very 13 complicated, rapidly changing, industry. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Noah. 15 MR. HOROWITZ: This is Noah Horowitz. I 16 agree with a lot of what my colleague, Paul, has just 17 mentioned. There may be content stored in the cloud 18 that might be referred to as a network DVR, so you 19 don’t need the hard drive, or in some cases, some of 20 your content may come from the network and some might 21 be recorded on what we currently think of as a spinning 22 hard drive. Bottom line, we think whether the DVR has 23 the disk in it or not, if you have the play and record 24 capability, we need to include those, not exclude them 25 from the scope. And in terms of hours of use, whether 26 the content resides in the box or in the cloud, we need 27 to capture that. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 64 MR. BROOKMAN: So regardless of whether you 1 agree with this specific definition, you understand why 2 DOE needs to have these definitions, correct? So in 3 your comments, tell them -- give them your best advice. 4 MR. HOROWITZ: Yes, so our advice that will 5 amplify in written comments is, we think it’s a DVR 6 whether or not it has a hard disk drive in it. Thank 7

you. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 9 MS. THAKKAR: I’d like to clarify and say 10 that the CEA definition on this point does include that 11 “set-top boxes that support a service provider 12 delivering network-based DVR service, are not 13 considered DVR set-top boxes.” So that is something 14 that’s not currently part of the CEA standard also. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: It seems like, Allen, do you 16 wish to make a comment. 17 MR. TSAO: Yeah, this is Allen with Navigant. 18 I just wanted to, I guess, ask -- I understand that 19 maybe it’s still called a DVR if it can record and do 20 all this stuff over the cloud, but would there be a 21 need to test it differently than, you know, so if I’m 22 just receiving video and it’s live or I’m receiving a 23 prerecorded content, I mean, would that mean to be 24 tested actually differently? I mean that’s kind of 25 where the notion of how the DVR is defined. We know 26 that because it has a disk, the energy consumption 27 increases, so you would test that to cover that case. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 65 But when it’s in the cloud, then I don’t know, maybe 1 it’s all the same, the power is the same. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: I guess we’ll start with Gary 3 first. 4 MR. LANGILLE: Well, a couple things. One is 5 that CEA standard does indicate what you said, but it 6 also adds at the end of that sentence you just 7 repeated, “for the purposes of this testing.” 8 MS. THAKKAR: Right. 9 MR. LANGILLE: So the idea was it was just a 10 qualifier as a trigger for which test would apply to a 11 particular device. Whereas if DOE actually defines 12 what a DVR is, that it must include an internal drive, 13 that could limit market issues that Paul has raised. 14 So I think -- we just need to talk about the language. 15 And in answer to your question, I think the 16 answer is maybe. I’ve got to think about it some more. 17 There might be multiple processes running when you’re 18 pulling in content from a network DVR that aren’t 19 running when you’re not. We have to all think about 20 it. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Gregg. 22 MR. HARDY: Building on Gary’s point, I think 23 that one potential solution would be to define a 24 capability called integrated DVR capability, and not to 25 define the box as a DVR and then say if you have 26 integrated DVR capability, you do the following test. 27 MR. DOMMU: Another follow up question is, 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 66 with some of this information you’re providing, if 1 there is a box that’s potentially, say, capable of -- 2 has an integrated DVhard disk but also is capable of 3 receiving DVR content from a cloud as you’re 4 suggesting, would there be reason to have an order of 5 specificity of how you record that content or how you 6 play it back within the test procedure? Would there be 7 differences in power consumption based on where that 8 DVR content is coming from? 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 10 MR. LANGILLE: This is Gary. Again, we’ll 11 have to spend some more time thinking about it. I mean 12 you raise a valid point that we need to make sure that 13 the definition tree is the right test to be run on a 14 device and I think we just have to figure out how to 15 properly word that. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We’re going to move on 17 then. 18 MS. THAKKAR: Thank you. So further 19 definition of display device. DOE is proposing to add 20 the clarification that the content that is received 21 through a video interface must be displayed for 22 viewing. The CEA standard does not explicitly state 23 that the content is displayed for viewing. DOE is 24 proposing to include this clarification to say that the 25 intent is also to display the device and not just 26 receive it. 27 The next definition is for home-network 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 67 interface. DOE proposes to adopt the CEA definition 1 but add the clarification that a home-network interface 2 is capable of transmitting video content. DOE is 3 proposing to include this clarification because today’s 4 proposed rule defines set-top boxes as a device that 5 must provide video output. And so a home-network 6 interface should be capable of transmitting video 7 content, which will require a high bandwidth 8 connection. The clarification ensures that low 9 bandwidth interfaces that will not be capable of 10 translating the video content and therefore would not 11 be applicable for connecting with the set-top box, are 12 excluded. 13 Finally, DOE is proposing to include 14 definitions for content provider and multi-stream. The 15 proposed definition for content provider is an entity 16 that provides video programming content. DOE is 17 proposing this term because the term content provider 18 is used in the proposed rule to explain the type of 19 content that should be streamed to a connected display 20 device or client. 21 For multi-stream, the proposed definition is 22 that a set-top box feature that may provide independent 23 video content to one or more clients, one or more 24 directly connected TVs, or a DVR. Again, DOE is 25 including this definition because the term is used in 26 the proposed rule extensively. In fact, DOE is using 27 it to describe set-top boxes that have multi-streaming 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 68 capability and should be tested in accordance with the 1 multi-stream test which we will discuss later in the 2 day. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam. 4 MR. A. GOLDBERG: I guess this relates to the 5 other direct video connection. If -- I mean you may be 6 reading that in context with the HNI definition, it 7 would seem to say that a direct video connection is -- 8 a direct video connection in that it will -- excluding 9 anything over the home networking interface and it 10 lists some things here. But I mean, still, I’m not 11 entirely sure that this is as forward-thinking as it 12 might be. But if the definition for -- if we talk 13 about other video device in terms of -- sorry, other 14 video interface as being other video interface not HNI, 15 then that might give clarity. I don’t know if it’s the 16 right answer or not, but it might make it clearer. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Gary. 18 MR. LANGILLE: Just a general comment that -- 19 on HNI, that the addition of the qualification that 20 it’s capable of transmitting video -- we’ll suggest 21 some language that will try to, I guess, get at the 22 intent. But we think that isn’t sufficient because 23 basically every home network interface is capable of 24 transmitting video. May not be much video, may not be 25 very viewable, but they’re all going to transmit video 26 at some level. So we think that possibly the 27 definition of what a home network interface maybe 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 69 should stay similar to what’s already in the CEA 1 standard, but that separately from that there should be 2 just a qualification list of what DOE will accept as an 3 acceptable home network interface to use for the test - 4 - processors or something to that effect. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes. 6 MR. TSAO: I think the point of that too is 7 for testing purpose use the home network interface to 8 maybe stream video and it may be possible that there 9 may be products that have this interface and it’s used 10 for some other purpose besides the video. So I agree 11 to suggest some language there, but that’s going to be 12 the test. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Allen. Back to 14 you, Mansi. 15 MS. THAKKAR: So moving right along. The 16 definitions of power modes. DOE is proposing to adopt 17 definitions specified in the CEA standard for on, 18 sleep, and off power modes. But DOE is proposing to 19 include additional information to the sleep mode 20 definition. So for the sleep mode definition, DOE is 21 proposing to include “the set-top box shall be able to 22 transition from sleep mode to on mode within 30 seconds 23 to be considered in sleep mode. That is, if the set24 top box cannot transition from sleep to on mode within 25 30 seconds, then it is not considered to have sleep 26 mode capability for the purposes of today’s rule, and 27 the set-top box should not be tested for the sleep mode 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 70 energy consumption.” 1 DOE is proposing to include the 30 second 2 requirement as an upper bound for the transition time 3 to ensure that full functionality resumes in a 4 reasonable period of time. DOE is including this 5 because in response to the RFI that was published in 6 2011, it received a stakeholder comment which 7 referenced consumer studies to indicate that consumers 8 have a strong resistance to adopt lower power modes if 9 the recovery time, which is the transition time from 10 sleep to on mode, is longer than one minute. Such a 11 long recovery time is likely a barrier to adoption 12 because it negatively impacts the user’s experience 13 such that they may not use the sleep mode functionality 14 of the set-top box. And if consumers disable sleep 15 mode on the set-top box, this test procedure will 16 likely not be representative. 17 So at this time, DOE invites comment on the 18 definitions of all three power modes, and specifically 19 about the requirement to transition from sleep to on 20 mode within 30 seconds. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Paul. 22 MR. GLIST: Paul Glist. I am capable, and 23 MVPDs generally are very supportive of the idea that 24 the sleep modes should give a very good consumer 25 experience. So I’m not taking issue with that. I am 26 confused as to why a performance metric is in what is 27 supposed to be a testing method that is not 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 71 establishing a standard. It would seems to be mixing 1 two different things together and I’m, you know, Ashley 2 told me we’re not doing standards here, we’re just 3 saying how to test. Why wouldn’t you just say you test 4 it, you measure the results, and you get a number? 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Allen. 6 MR. TSAO: This is Allen with Navigant. So, 7 the goal is to have sort of the apples to apples 8 comparison. When we talk about the sleep of one 9 product that we’re talking about the same thing. If 10 one set-top box just shuts it off and takes ten minutes 11 to resume, and another -- and that’s like less than a 12 watt, and another set-top box resumes very quickly and 13 that takes eight watts, and we call those the same 14 things, then there may be some mismatch, right, between 15 -- well, someone’s going to say well this box may be a 16 lot better at sleep mode because it can go down to .01. 17 So I think there’s some notion of parity that we’re 18 trying to get out with the definition of the sleep 19 mode. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam. 21 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Yes, so this is Adam for 22 TiVo. So the -- what we’re talking about now is on, 23 sleep, and off, and I think that the current discussion 24 has been is 30 seconds a good number for describing 25 sleep mode. And maybe a better time to talk about what 26 I’m getting at here is in a discussion of what the duty 27 cycle calculation is. But it’s true, I think, that, as 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 72 Allen was saying, that it’s something if the device 1 takes ten minutes to come out of sleep then it’s going 2 to be a poor experience. But even in the case where -- 3 let me put it this way -- we’re talking about sleep 4 mode here seems to be automatic power down sleep, that 5 is, either the box after a period of time puts it in a 6 lower power state or the user pushes a power button and 7 after a period of time it goes into a lower power state 8 and will wake up when someone wants to use it. And I 9 think one interesting aspect of this that’s missing is 10 not an automatic power down in terms of little use, but 11 rather a scheduled power down state. 12 You know, there can be times when a device is 13 going to be at a higher power consuming standby mode 14 and things like automatic power down or automatic power 15 down sleep do what they do. For example, in the middle 16 of the night, when few people watch TV, it could do 17 other things like put itself into a much deeper sleep 18 that takes longer to come out of. But so long as the 19 user experience isn’t affected, that shouldn’t matter. 20 For example, I mean if I made software in a 21 box say between two and six a.m. it went into a low 22 power mode where it took a minute to come out of it, 23 then few people are even going to notice that ever 24 happens. And in a discussion of duty cycle, I mean, 25 right now we make assumptions about how much time per 26 day is spent in various states. And for something like 27 a scheduled power down, I mean we can measure exactly 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 73 what the power consumption is during that state and we 1 can know as shipped, exactly how much time per day it’s 2 going to spend in that state. And there’s -- we’d like 3 to see an accommodation for that sort of operating mode 4 included in the test procedure and in particular, the 5 TEC calculation. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeremy. 7 MR. DOMMU: So this requirement for the 30 8 second from sleep to on applies to the two sleep tests 9 that we are proposing in the test procedure. One is 10 this the normal sleep mode test and the other is the 11 auto power down. So it’s within those two specific 12 tests that the 30 second requirement would apply to. As 13 we get into the sleep tests later today, we’ll explain 14 our proposal to ensuring that none of those automatic 15 downloads occur during the performance of the test. 16 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Yeah, I’m sorry, that’s not 17 what I was -- that’s not what I was getting at. I’m 18 saying there’s a missing sleep state from the -- 19 downloads being a wholly separate discussion. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Gary. 21 MR. LANGILLE: I was just going to comment 22 that I totally understand the challenge and I think 23 what DOE is trying to get to as far as comparing apples 24 to apples and whether a sleep mode would actually get 25 used or not by users. But I think that defining the 26 sleep mode with a specific time, it might be an error 27 in that it may be better to define sleep mode as 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 74 whatever it happens to be, but put the time limits in a 1 different section where you’re figuring out where the 2 rating is for a device. For instance, you could say, 3 when you figure out the rating for a device and how you 4 have to label it for sleep mode, you may say you can 5 only count the level of sleep it was able to obtain 6 with a 30 second recovery. But don’t change the 7 definition of sleep mode. 8 The other comment I’d like to make is that I 9 think that for a test standard, it’s really important 10 that we keep as much of the sort of behavioral times 11 out of the actual testing if we can. Like for 12 instance, I can tell you that if I lived in Hawaii and 13 I’m paying 40 cents per kilowatt hour, I’d probably be 14 perfectly happy to take a minute for it to turn on, 15 given that I could save a significant amount of money 16 every night. You know, I live in Colorado. It’s ten 17 cents a kilowatt hour, I probably don’t care too much. 18 So I think that even where the 30 seconds is 19 acceptable, it depends to whom, to where, the 20 geography, and I think that somehow we’re going to have 21 to move that to a different part of the calculation. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Noah. 23 MR. HOROWITZ: Noah Horowitz with NRDC. To 24 be responsive to your question up there, is 30 seconds 25 appropriate, we think that’s an appropriate middle 26 ground. If it’s longer than that, consumers are 27 frustrated. If it’s shorter than that, it might be 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 75 difficult to achieve, and many TVs take 15-plus seconds 1 to turn on, so it won’t be that much longer than the 2 consumer is already experiencing. 3 A couple of finer points. We have the new 4 term, transition from sleep to on within 30 seconds. 5 We’d like to see some more clarity of what do we mean 6 to transition to on. Does that mean I can go to the 7 last channel I selected? Can I go to any channel? Or 8 is my program guide supposed to be fully populated 9 within those 30 seconds? So how far do you need to -- 10 how much of the full functionality do you need? 11 Another example would be, can I pull up my list of 12 prerecorded shows and get to them after the 30 seconds, 13 or might that take another two minutes? I don’t know 14 what that point is, but we need to define it through 15 more conversation. 16 We also think this transition time should be 17 reported as part of the output from the test method, 18 and I agree with Gary and other -- and Adam here -- 19 that DOE might want to include a deep sleep, and by a 20 deep sleep, that’s where it has less power than on 21 mode, but would have a resume time greater than 30 22 seconds, for example. And there may be some consumers, 23 this could be optional, and we’ll figure out how or 24 whether to include it in the TEC, but those 25 manufacturers that want to provide a deep sleep in the 26 interim, should be able to do so. Some people might be 27 off the grid or have time of use pricing and they might 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 76 be okay certain times of the day want their device to 1 go into a truly low power state without much user 2 inconvenience, especially if it’s implemented wisely. 3 Long term, I think the industry has a goal of 4 having one simple sleep state. You hit the on/off 5 button, it uses very little power. You hit the button 6 again and it resumes quickly. We’re not there yet so 7 there might be an interim time period where having this 8 second deep sleep, whatever we call it, might be 9 warranted. Thank you. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Gregg. 11 MR. HARDY: Gregg Hardy. I think that the 12 apples and oranges comment that Allen you made, is an 13 important one. I think DOE’s approach is sort of a 14 simple approach that makes sense. It does not factor 15 in the possibility of scheduled sleep. I think that 16 DOE, given what Gary said, I think DOE ought to 17 consider what it would look like if they just measured 18 sleep states and then wait times for each of those 19 sleep states, and somehow you would define what it 20 means to go to a new sleep state and then you would 21 measure the sleep time for that sleep state, so that 22 the test procedure truly is just testing the boxes and 23 not specifying limits. 24 And I’m not sure how that would all play out 25 in the whole ecosystem of what this test procedure is 26 about. You might then have situations where different 27 organizations have different energy calculations 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 77 because they might come on different uses of these 1 sleep levels or have different specifications, so that 2 would -- the downside of that would be that you might 3 not have consistent reporting of total energy 4 calculation. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Which they’re trying to avoid. 6 MR. HARDY: Right. Understand. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: So additional comments before 8 we move on? Okay. 9 **Test Conditions and Set Up** 10 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. Thank you. So moving on 11 to test conditions and set ups. For the set-top box, 12 DOE is proposing that for set-top boxes that require 13 subscription to a service, the simplest video 14 subscription that supports all the functionality 15 proposed in the test procedure should be selected. 16 Supporting the required functionality here would mean 17 functionality such as high definition streaming, multi18 streaming, or DVR, which are functionality that are 19 being tested according to today’s proposed rule. 20 Once the subscription has been selected, the 21 set-top box will be installed. If the set-top box can 22 be installed and set up according to the instructions 23 provided in the user manual, then it must be installed 24 according to those instructions. On the other hand, if 25 the set-top box must be installed by a manufacturer’s 26 technician, per the instructions provided by the 27 manufacturer, then it shall be set up and installed by 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 78 that technician. All the steps that the manufacturer’s 1 technician would follow to install the set-top box in a 2 consumer household must be followed and these 3 instructions must be recorded and maintained by the 4 set-top box manufacturer. 5 DOE is proposing this requirement to ensure 6 the set-top boxes are tested in the same set up as they 7 would be when installed in a consumer’s home, and to 8 ensure that the test is representative. The CEA 9 standard does not specify this requirement. The 10 requirements that DOE is proposing are to ensure that 11 non-tested features are set up in the default setting, 12 that is, they are set up in the settings as they would 13 be when first installed in a user’s home. 14 While the language for these requirements is 15 not exactly the same, these requirements were adopted 16 from the CEA standard, which optionally specifies that 17 non-tested features should be left in the default 18 setting. 19 At this time, DOE requests comment on the 20 proposed requirements for setting up set-top boxes as 21 installed in the consumer’s home for testing. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Gregg. 23 MR. HARDY: Gregg Hardy. So two things. The 24 NOPR says that the manufacturer’s technician will -- 25 should configure the box, and I think there are other 26 policy tools where this test procedure would be used 27 where there’s going to be a third party doing the 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 79 testing so that wouldn’t be relevant in those 1 situations. And I forget the other point. 2 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, I don’t think that’s what 3 we’re proposing in the test procedure. We’re just 4 talking more generally about the technician who is 5 performing the test, not necessarily the manufacturer’s 6 technician. 7 MR. HARDY: Okay. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Gary. 9 MR. LANGILLE: Echostar’s just generally 10 supportive of improving the clarification of the 11 initial set up of the test condition. In fact, I think 12 we got something in there in our previous draft, but I 13 don’t know how it got taken out. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments on 15 that in writing. Adam. 16 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Yes, so I don’t -- I’m just 17 looking at the slide and not the text in the NOPR, but 18 when the -- for a user installed device, maybe you can 19 go back to that slide? Yes. So it says installed 20 according to the instructions in the user manual. Does 21 the NOPR say or certainly the regulation, I think 22 should, that according to the instructions in the user 23 manual selecting all the defaults -- right? 24 MS. THAKKAR: Right. I believe that the way 25 it’s specified is that you follow the steps in the user 26 manual and you set it up so the non-tested features are 27 in the default condition. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 80MR. A. GOLDBERG: I’m not talking about non1 tested features. 2 MS. THAKKAR: Okay, so -- 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: So go back -- this is Ashley 4 from DOE. Check the language in the notice. The idea 5 -- the premise behind it was that each step a user 6 would go through if it’s articulated in your user 7 manual, we will go through for testing. Same thing as 8 what we tried to do with the technician is saying the 9 test technician would emulate anything a manufacturer’s 10 technician would do in the field. The language doesn’t 11 accurately capture all that, let us know. 12 MR. A. GOLDBERG: What I’m trying to say is, 13 is for example, there’s like a guided set up, and 14 there’s -- it asks a series of questions and say one of 15 the questions is, consume extra ten watts? And the 16 default is no. Well -- 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: We would go with no. 18 MR. A. GOLDBERG: I’m just asking. The 19 procedure should say, select the default. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. And that’s fine, as 21 long as the default clearly -- what the default option 22 is clearly labeled in your installation manual because 23 you guys can do it pretty differently depending on who 24 we’re talking about. Thank you. 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Gregg. 26 MR. HARDY: Gregg Hardy. So for gateway 27Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 81 boxes, I think the definition says that you’ll set up a 1 box for the most basic service, and for a gateway box 2 we recommend that it be tested with telephony active 3 and broadband active, if that’s capable -- if the box 4 is capable of that, but not in use. Otherwise you 5 don’t capture the power -- potential power consumption 6 of those capabilities, so that would not be the most 7 basic package, it would be the most basic triple play 8 package that exercises capability. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Noah. 10 MR. HOROWITZ: Noah Horowitz with NRDC. We 11 support the added clause by DOE of always keeping 12 untested features in default setting, and I agree with 13 the comment my colleague, Gregg, just made. To the 14 extent there are other features, it’s Gregg, not Craig, 15 just for you, Doug -- 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank you. I 17 apologize. 18 MR. HARDY: I was going to slip you a note 19 under the table on that. 20 MR. HOROWITZ: So if it’s provided -- if it 21 has the capability of providing internet, you know, 22 high speed data or telephony, you connect all those 23 cables, but during the test you’re not activating them, 24 so you’re not making a call or you’re not streaming 25 data. So we’re focusing on the primary use, but to the 26 extent that there’s a lot of unnecessary overhead 27 energy, it would be captured there. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 82 One other piece in all of this. It’s often 1 the service provider that is deploying the box, not the 2 manufacturer. So we say a set-top box must be 3 installed by technician per manufacturer’s 4 instructions, the technician from the service provider 5 can make some decisions to turn certain things on or 6 off, which have a dramatic impact on the energy use. 7 So when we get into the set up conditions and 8 throughout, I think we need to be clear on that. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Paul, and 10 then to Gary. 11 MR. GLIST: Two points. I may have been 12 confused by Mr. Hardy’s comment about gateways being 13 turned on and measured with multiple services running, 14 when I thought we had just got through a discussion 15 that gateways without direct video connect would be out 16 of scope. And so that may be my own confusion about 17 what was going on there, but that didn’t connect for 18

me. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: You want to let -- go on 20 Gregg, follow on. 21 MR. HARDY: Sure, specifically, currently 22 headless gateways are out of scope, but certainly there 23 are other gateways that could be in scope, ones that 24 have a direct video connection. 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Now back to Paul. 26 MR. GLIST: So I understand his comment 27 although I may disagree with it as we get into the 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 83 written record. 1 The other point that I have raised repeatedly 2 in prior chapters and the Department has never engaged 3 with us on is to consider the effect on innovation of 4 new features that may have minimal market share, they 5 might be out there in trials, they might be deployed in 6 a box even making use of existing silicon which is an 7 energy efficient way of trying it out. And the test 8 procedure makes no accommodation for that path to 9 innovation. It’s addressed in the NOPR. It’s not 10 addressed so much in the test procedures. I renew that 11 and I will explore it again in the written comments, 12 because as I said it’s been represented to me 13 repeatedly that the Department does not want to stand 14 in the way of innovation and I think there are finer 15 ways to cut this to allow the industry to continue to 16 innovate and compete and still do it in an energy 17 efficient way. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary -- actually let Ashley 19 slip in here. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: I’m just going to follow on, 21 and perhaps it’s a bit of my background appreciation 22 for the types of innovation you’re doing. But I’m not 23 understanding what the language is that precludes you. 24 Is it that certain modes won’t be -- I mean I don’t get 25 that incorporating a certain type of silicon or 26 whatever you’re explaining won’t -- can’t be tested in 27 accordance and won’t give you a credit. We’re asking 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 84 you to take the wattage values. 1 MR. GLIST: And I think to try to put a finer 2 point on it so that you understand the issue -- this 3 proceeding is morphing into standards and caps, 4 regardless of representations to the contrary. If 5 we’re just measuring and it’s just going to be posted 6 and nothing else happens, then I don’t have a problem 7 on the innovation cycle. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think I’m trying to 9 distinguish, because what this proceeding is trying to 10 do is set up a test method, and so when you make 11 comments -- and while we appreciate everyone’s 12 comments, we’re trying to understand what exact 13 language is precluding innovation. So that’s why, you 14 know, I don’t -- standards aside, a different issue for 15 another day. But if you would tell us exactly what 16 language is precluding innovation as part of the actual 17 testing procedure, that is of great concern to the 18 Department, as you said. 19 MR. GLIST: Yea, and we’ll do that. 20

MS. ARMSTRONG: Great. 21 MR. GLIST: You engage quite well in the 22 NOPR, and you said we disagree with you, so I don’t 23 think the issue is vague, but I will clarify it in 24 written comments. 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Gary. 26 MR. LANGILLE: I was just going to make a 27 general comment that my reading of the NOPR and also 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 85 the CEA 2043 standard is that the -- both of these test 1 procedures as written or as referenced to each other, 2 don’t support the testing of non-set-top box -- non3 video functions, let’s put it that way. So if you do 4 have a broadband service or a telephone service 5 resident in the same box, there’s nothing in these 6 standards that tell you how to configure, what to do 7 with those while you’re testing the video portion. So 8 I think we have to either define set-top box to exclude 9 devices that contain more than just video service 10 capabilities, or if we’re going to include devices that 11 include, you know, more than video services -- 12 broadband, telephone, security, whatever -- then we 13 have to update the test procedure to tell you how to 14 set those up and how they should be configured. The 15 statements in CEA 2043 where it says, optionally, you 16 know, keeps non-tested features in default setting, it 17 was meant to say sort of, non-tested set-top box video 18 features, meaning, you know, for instance, trying to 19 think what CEA -- ultra high definition is 20 theoretically on the way. We’re all going to have 21 these 4K TVs in another five years. Well, I’m not 22 because they cost 12 grand, but -- so there’s a feature 23 that may show up in a set-top box. For those ten 24 people that can afford that TV and the reason for that 25 is so that we can innovate, we can experiment, we can 26 see what it takes to deliver that kind of quality, 27 whether the customers are accepting of the quality we 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 86 deliver or what technical issues are there. 1 So to me, that’s the kind of feature that 2 statement was aimed at, is that, you know, don’t turn 3 that on when you do the test. It’s not a whole other 4 service delivery system or a whole other huge energy 5 consuming section. It’s just sort of a small feature 6 you can keep off. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert. 8 MR. TURNER: I think Gary has covered a lot 9 of what I was thinking, but the way we tackled it in 10 Europe is we have, which is another step further, a 11 sort of limits on the test method, and the test method 12 specifically says, if you have a feature that doesn’t 13 have an allowance, you specifically exclude it, 14 disabling it, so you’re measuring what you intend to 15 measure, not unintended extras. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Gregg. 17 MR. HARDY: Is someone else first? Okay. 18 Gregg Hardy. So thinking, you know, sometimes it’s 19 hard not to think ahead to whatever we do in the spec, 20 right, but in a scenario where you test the other 21 triple play functions, broadband, telephony, then you 22 might have functional adders for those, per Robert’s 23 comment and if you come up with a new feature that 24 doesn’t have a functional adder, that you would not 25 have to test that. So with a scenario like that, I’m 26 just envisioning a world where telephony and broadband, 27 you know, if gateways are going to become very common 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 87 devices, those would be very common features. So it’s 1 a scenario where if you didn’t have functional adders 2 for those and you didn’t test for them, then those 3 would sort of be unregulated capabilities within 4 gateways. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Jennifer. 6 MS. SANFORD: This is Jennifer Sanford with 7 Cisco. I think Gregg’s point proves the point that 8 this is a fishing expedition. And if we’re focusing on 9 set-top boxes and measuring set-top boxes, let’s focus 10 on that. And if we’re not, then let’s include 11 everything else and make sure we’re representing 12 everything else. And I’ll say for the record I think 13 that the voluntary agreement and the EnergyStar program 14 and other voluntarily led programs by industry have 15 this covered, and I think we should take that into 16

account. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Gregg, follow on. 18 MR. HARDY: Sure. I just want to disagree 19 with the point that this -- that proves it’s a fishing 20 expedition, and just say that I think there’s a real 21 debate that needs to happen about when you have a box 22 with multiple capabilities and it’s primarily a set-top 23 box, do you want to know how much energy that device 24 uses in its most common usage. If we take all the 25 energy calculations of all these set-top boxes and we 26 add up a national energy sum, you might want to have 27 the broadband and the telephone capabilities as part of 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 88 that energy. But when we get the boxes that are 1 primarily game consoles, we might want to test out the 2 video streaming functions of those also and include 3 that energy in that box. 4 So it’s more of a philosophical point about 5 what are you measuring. Are you measuring the energy 6 use in its most common usage? 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Chuck Samuels. 8 MR. SAMUELS: It sounds like Gregg’s view, 9 philosophical view, is just regulate everything that 10 has an electron moving, even if you can’t define it. 11 But more specifically, and to Ashley’s point about 12 what’s the inhibition on innovation. This question 13 about functional adders, which is what would normally 14 happen in a test procedure, makes sense when you have 15 relatively static technology and designs, and fairly 16 slow pace of change. Here, where you’re having changes 17 throughout the year and every year, it’s inevitable 18 that companies are going to need to come to DOE to seek 19 waivers from the test procedure, and in and of itself, 20 that will be an inhibition on innovation. You’re going 21 to have all kinds of complicated issues about 22 disclosure of confidential information. You don’t 23 really address this within the test procedure, because 24 you think of it as sort of separate as the waiver 25 process. But frankly, you have to integrate thinking 26 about what are you going to do as your test procedure 27 becomes more and more irrelevant every year, and how 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 89 are you going to keep up with that? And I think it’s a 1 fundamental problem, basically a law written in the 2 1970s and 1980s didn’t contemplate this scenario, and 3 it just doesn’t work. But whether you agree with that 4 or not, I think the Department has to consider how it 5 is going to use the waiver or other process to keep up 6 with changes that are not going to make sense in terms 7 of a static test procedure. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Charlie Stephens. 9 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I just 10 wanted to add a little perspective. A couple of us 11 here in the room are representing people who pay our 12 salaries who have an obligation to keep the lights on, 13 no matter what wonderful innovations everybody sitting 14 around the table comes up with and attaches to that 15 grid by the millions. If it were a few ten thousands 16 of these things, it would be one thing, but these 17 things run in the millions, and there actually is a 18 need for us to understand exactly how much energy they 19 use and will use, because somebody has to go out and 20 invest the multimillions of dollars that it takes to 21 serve these new loads. 22 So I am interested in how much it uses, and I 23 am interested in all those other functionalities that 24 might come along with it, because they’re adding up 25 into very large numbers. And my own preliminary field 26 research kind of shows that. So I’m sure we can do it. 27 I’d rather argue about how to do it well than argue 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 90 about whether we should do it at all. Thank you. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Paul. 2 MR. GLIST: I would just like to address Mr. 3 Stephens’ point because one of the things that we 4 learned in developing the voluntary agreement was the 5 importance of trying to come up with aggregate 6 footprints and trends in the industry so that people in 7 Charlie’s position and the IOUs and the energy 8 advocates and the DOE could see where things were going 9 in this very rapidly changing complex environment. So 10 we’ve put those kinds of annual reporting metrics into 11 the voluntary agreement in a way that I think is very 12 helpful and has the advantage of flexibility that does 13 not interfere with innovation. 14 By contrast, by singling out a class of 15 defined set-top boxes in the way that you have and 16 saying that we really need to know what the plug load 17 is associated with that, and saying but for those 200 18 million video devices that we call gaming consoles, 19 ignore that. Nothing to see here, has no impact on 20 IOUs or DOE or consumers or anything, just ignore that. 21 Or give them an incentive, you know, get an EPA merit 22 badge and plus, we’ll give you 40 watts for active mode 23 and no ceiling on anything that you can dump into the 24 device. That is a competitive disparity that makes no 25

sense. 26 And so I challenge the Department again to 27 compare the relative benefits of something that works 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 91 well with rapid innovation in the market and one that 1 has broadly segmented the market and is running the 2 risk of handicapping the innovation of just a select 3 few. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I think we’re going to 5

move on now. 6 **Test Conditions and Setup** 7 MS. THAKKAR: So the next requirement is for 8 the test room and these requirements have been adopted 9 as specified in the CEA standard. DOE proposes that 10 the air speed surrounding the set-top box shall be less 11 than or equal to 0.5 meters per second. The ambient 12 temperature should be maintained at 23 degrees Celsius, 13 with a tolerance of five degrees Celsius throughout 14 testing. And the set-top box should be tested on a 15 thermally non-conductive surface. 16 While DOE is proposing these requirements, it 17 believes that it may be difficult to maintain the 18 required air temperature of 23 degrees Celsius at such 19 a low air speed. This is because the heat generated 20 from the set-top box would likely heat up the 21 surrounding air and at such a low air speed, the air 22 temperature will not be maintained. DOE believes that 23 the air speed requirement may be stringent in 24 conjunction with the temperature requirement, 25 particularly because it is likely that the power 26 consumption of the set-top box does not really vary 27 significantly at a moderately higher air speed. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 92 So at this time, DOE requests comment on the 1 proposed test room conditions and also with respect to 2 air speed, DOE request comment on whether the 0.5 3 meters per second requirement is fine or if it should 4 be relaxed to a higher value, or removed all together. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. No? No comment. Yes, 6 Robert. 7 MR. TURNER: Happy with it. It’s the same 8 basic criteria as in 62301, which is the main standard 9 for measuring essential standby power. If you go for 10 higher temperature ambience, then you’re going to get 11 some different results because particularly for DVRs, 12 we have the fan working, and that changes the answer. 13 Keeping a standard room ambient and a nominal still air 14 will give repeatable answers. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Additional 16

comments? 17 MS. THAKKAR: So the next subject we will 18 discuss is test set up. For the proposed test 19 procedure, DOE is proposing test set up requirements 20 for input power, measurement accuracy, test equipment, 21 true power watt meter, and instrument calibration. 22 These requirements have been specified according to the 23 requirements in the CEA standard, and are discussed in 24 detail in the NOPR. 25 DOE requests comment on each of these 26 proposed test set up requirements. 27 Okay. Moving on to the network set up. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 93 MR. BROOKMAN: Noah has a comment. 1 MR. HOROWITZ: A question -- Noah Horowitz 2 from NRDC. I don’t know whether we could here or it’s 3 covered later in the day. Your talk about the accuracy 4 of the meters. Another important point is the 5 allowable tolerance. So the meter might be plus or 6 minus a tenth of a watt, but in terms of the reported 7 value, does that need to be within a certain threshold 8 as well? Is it plus or minus one percent, three 9 percent? 10 MS. THAKKAR: We do discuss rounding 11 requirements later on. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Someone on the webinar has a 13 question, Antonio Figueiredo. Antonio, if you speak 14 clearly and loudly we ought to be able to hear you. 15 Why don’t you try it. 16 MR. Figueiredo: Yeah, Tony Figueiredo from 17 Cisco Systems. The question I had was the definition 18 of a non-conductive surface. I’d like to know what is 19 a non-conductive surface. Even air is conductive, so I 20 need clarification on what you guys are referring to. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeremy first. 22 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, thank you, and I do believe 23 you’ve already submitted this comment writtenly for the 24 record, and it’s something that we will certainly 25 consider. I mean I think that the intent here was that 26 it’s tested on a wood or a glass surface, not 27 necessarily a metal surface. But if that language is 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 94 not specific enough to get to that requirement, we will 1 certainly look for feedback from stakeholders on how to 2 make it more specific to meet your expectational 3 question that you have. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary, you want to -- 5 MR. LANGILLE: I was just going to add that 6 as cochair of the standards group, we’ll also take that 7 in consideration. I mean clearly that’s an error that 8 needs to be fixed. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Keep going. 10 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. So for the service 11 provider network connection, DOE is proposing that for 12 set-top boxes that require a service provider 13 connection, the set-top box shall be tested with a 14 specific service provider network or in an environment 15 that’s simulates a subscriber operating environment and 16 is verified by the service provider. These 17 requirements are as specified in the CEA standard. 18 At this time, DOE requests comment on the 19 proposed requirements for the service provider 20 connection. DOE particularly requests comment about 21 whether the power consumption of the set-top box is 22 similar on the live network versus the simulated 23 environment. 24

No comments? 25 MR. BROOKMAN: No comment here? We’ll come 26 back to it. Okay. 27 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. So the next network 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 95 requirement is for the home network connection. DOE is 1 proposing requirements that are specified in the CEA 2 standard with one key addition. The CEA standard says 3 that the entity specifying the use of the standard 4 should provide the home network connections. So DOE is 5 proposing that for set-top boxes that require home 6 network connection, the order in which the connection 7 is selected should be MoCA, followed by HPNA, followed 8 by Wi-Fi, and finally if none of these connections are 9 available, then any other connection. The order of 10 these connections is being proposed based on the most 11 common to least common home network interface 12 connections that are known as of today. These 13 requirements are again consistent with the requirements 14 in version 3.0 of the EnergyStar specification. 15 At this time, DOE requests comment on a few 16 issues. First, we’re requesting comment on the 17 proposed requirements for the home network connection. 18 We are also requesting comment on the proposed order 19 which is MoCA, followed by HPNA, followed by Wi-Fi. 20 And finally, DOE requests comment about whether there 21 are any additional home network interface connections 22 that should be included and order of preference in 23 which they should be included. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam. 25 MR. A. GOLDBERG: I think Gary was in first. 26 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary, go ahead. 27 MR. LANGILLE: I was just going to comment 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 96 that I think specifying the preference for usage of the 1 home networks is fine as part of requirements before 2 you run a test procedure. I do think that DOE should 3 make sure that they put this in a place that it can be 4 updated frequently. For instance, 802.11 WiFi, you 5 know, there’s already a whole bunch of versions and the 6 most recent one, AC, really draws a lot of power for 7 itself. That may end up being more than MoCA by the 8 time it’s done. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: So thank you. Adam. 10 MR. A. GOLDBERG: So just to be clear, 11 without a TiVo hat on, I find it curious that 802.11 is 12 behind the HPNA, and it might even be that WiFi is more 13 popular than MoCA for these devices. And then 14 finally, that 802.3, which is just a wired Ethernet, 15 isn’t in here at all, having just completed building a 16 house, I can tell you that I’m not going to be using 17 MoCA to connect my devices. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 19 comments? Robert? 20 MR. TURNER: I wasn’t going to -- 21 MR. BROOKMAN: You looked like you were 22 ready. 23 MR. TURNER: All I would say is I wouldn’t 24 define a product list. I would leave it that each 25 technology should be measured and the results recorded. 26 So if you’ve got three network interfaces, measure each 27 interface and record the results. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 97 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments? Okay. 1 MS. THAKKAR: For the broadband service 2 connection, again, DOE is proposing requirements that 3 are specified in the CEA standard. But DOE is also 4 proposing an additional requirement. The requirement 5 adopted from the CEA standard specifies that every set6 top box that includes a home network interface 7 connection and requires that this connection be 8 connected to broadband service for operation of 9 principal set-top box functions, then the set-top box 10 shall be tested while connected to a broadband network. 11 The broadband performance criteria, such as download 12 speed, and upload speed, should meet the specific 13 requirements of the set-top box. 14 Additionally, DOE is proposing that if a set15 top box operates with both broadband connection and 16 service provider connection, then the service provider 17 connection takes precedence. That is, a broadband 18 connection is used only if the set-top box requires it 19 for operating a principal function. 20 DOE is proposing to include this 21 clarification because there may be some set-top boxes 22 that can operate on both networks. For such boxes, it 23 is our understanding that the box typically operates on 24 the service provider network connection, rather than 25 the broadband connection. 26 At this point, DOE invites comment on the 27 proposed requirements for broadband connection. DOE 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 98 also requests comment on the clarification that a 1 service provider connection should take precedence over 2 a broadband connection. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam. 4 MR. A. GOLDBERG: So I’m looking at the 5 definition of principal STB function, and I’m not sure 6 whether the program guide is included in that. I think 7 it makes a difference, honestly, because I could -- 8 looking at the word select, selecting -- that’s there 9 for selecting. I can select a channel without having a 10 guide. Right? 11 MS. THAKKAR: Right. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeremy. 13 MR. DOMMU: We do have a definition of 14 principal set-top box function in section 2.18 of the 15 test procedure. That means “a function necessary for 16 selecting, receiving, decoding, decompressing or 17 delivering video content to a display device, DVR, or 18 client. Monitoring for user or network request is not 19 considered a principal set-top box function.” So 20 that’s a proposed definition that we have. 21 MR. A. GOLDBERG: And that’s an issue I had a 22 question about. Does that include a guide or not? 23 MR. DOMMU: Ah, I mean, we don’t specifically 24 mention that a guide is included in that definition I 25 just read off. 26 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 27 MR. LANGILLE: I was just going to agree -- I 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 99 actually wrote that and when I wrote it I was thinking 1 selecting that guide, but you point out a very valid 2 point that it’s not clear at all. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Gregg. 4 MR. HARDY: I’ll just finish the thought and 5 say I think a guide should be in there. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: That’s useful, thank you. 7 Additional comments on this issue. Did they hit the 8 second one? Mansi? Clarification service provider, 9 network connection should take precedence over 10 broadband connection? Comments? Additional comments? 11 No additional comments. Okay. We’re moving on. 12 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. The next is service 13 provider network distribution equipment. This includes 14 equipment such as network gateways, network routers, 15 and other devices that are required for distribution of 16 a service provider network to the set-top box. For 17 such equipment, DOE is proposing that the power 18 consumed by these equipment should be excluded from the 19 power consumption of the set-top box. Again, this 20 requirement is specified in the CEA standard. DOE is 21 proposing to exclude the power consumption of these 22 equipment because they do not meet the proposed 23 definition of the set-top box. 24 At this time, DOE requests comment about the 25 proposed exclusion of the power consumption of such 26 equipment from the power consumption of the set-top 27 box. Also, if stakeholders indicate that the power 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 100 consumption of this equipment should be included, then 1 DOE requests comment on the test method as well as 2 standard configuration in which these equipment should 3 be tested. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 5 MR. LANGILLE: Echostar agrees that the way 6 that the tests are currently written that, you know, 7 we’re focused on testing a set-top box, then we agree 8 that you should not include extraneous equipment to get 9 the signal distributed around the home to the box. We 10 believe that would be the subject of a different test 11 procedure if it had to be done or included. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments? Noah. 13 MR. HOROWITZ: I agree, just like the outdoor 14 unit, the ONT and other three letter acronyms, 15 shouldn’t be part of this initial set-top box test 16 method, but to the extent that DOE wants to, they 17 should continue their evaluation of small network 18 equipment and when they do, they should try and 19 incorporate these other devices, some of which might 20 even consume more energy than the set-top box itself. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Robert. 22 MR. TURNER: I would agree with what’s being 23 proposed. The complication comes that you don’t want 24 to end up with having a networking device and the set25 top box as two separate boxes to get around limitations 26 of -- with any one of them, where you get a more energy 27 efficient solution by combining them. That’s the 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 101 challenge that you’re going to struggle with. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Next. 2 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. The last network set up 3 requirement is for input signal equipment. This 4 includes equipment such as low noise block down 5 converters, outdoor units, over the air antenna 6 amplifiers, and other similar equipment that is 7 required to operate the set-top box. For such 8 equipment DOE is proposing that if the equipment cannot 9 be powered from another source, then the power 10 consumption of this equipment must be included in the 11 power consumption of the set-top box. However, if the 12 equipment can be powered from another source, then it 13 must be powered from another source and such an 14 external source should not deliver any power to the 15 set-top box itself. 16 This requirement has been adopted from the 17 CEA standard, but there is a small difference. DOE is 18 proposing that if the equipment cannot be powered from 19 another source, then its power must be included. This 20 is not specified in the CEA standard. DOE is also 21 proposing that additional clarification that input 22 signal equipment should not deliver any power to the 23 set-top box if it is powered externally. CEA is not 24 proposing specifying this requirement either. 25 The second requirement is being proposed to 26 avoid the possibility of circumvention when the set-top 27 box receives some of its power from the external source 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 102 powering the equipment. For this requirement, DOE 1 considered, but has not proposed at this time, 2 specifying the use of a DC block, or a direct current 3 block that will prevent power transfer to and from the 4 input signal equipment. DOE has not proposed this 5 requirement because a DC block could potentially impact 6 the functionality of such equipment. 7 So at this time, DOE requests comment on the 8 proposed exclusion of input signal equipment if they 9 can be powered from another source, and additional 10 clarification that such equipment should not supply any 11 power to the set-top box. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary, looks like you’re ready. 13 MR. LANGILLE: I understand DOE’s concern 14 that there isn't a way to sort of, you know, power 15 parts of the set-top box that wouldn’t be counted as 16 part of the set-top box. We are somewhat against with 17 trying to come up with a specification for a DC block, 18 just because there’s so many different systems. But 19 maybe perhaps some language that we actually have to 20 verify that there’s no current or power being delivered 21 may be a better way to do it so that you don’t 22 interfere with any signal issues. 23 The other issue may be is that there may have 24 to be some exception language. We’ve had some crazy 25 thoughts that maybe you want to power part of the set26 top box from, for instance, an LNB power supply so 27 that the set-top box could go to a much deeper sleep, 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 103 and then just have the smaller LNB power supply keep 1 critical functions alive. So it could be that that 2 actually supplying power to some small section of a 3 set-top box could be a very innovative method to reduce 4 overall power consumption. So there may just have to 5 be some exception language added, but in general I 6 understand the concern and it seems like a reasonable - 7 - 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Charlie. 9 MR. STEPHENS: Just a dumb question. Is 10 there any reason why we just can’t measure it and net 11 it out? 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary, for the record, you’re 13 saying no. 14 MR. LANGILLE: That’s not what I’m proposing. 15 It’s just to make sure that you measure that there’s in 16 fact no power being transferred into the set-top box 17 from an input signal system. So it wouldn’t alter the 18 set-top box measurement. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: Gregg. 20 MR. HARDY: Gregg Hardy. I’d be interested 21 in Gary’s opinion on this, but I would prefer an 22 allowance, allowing test strips to subtract the power 23 level of the ONT from the set-top box measurement in 24 cases of ODU or LNB -- acronym soup here. And the 25 reason why is that it may create an incentive to move 26 to external power supplies which are often, my 27 understanding is, left on when a service is terminated, 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 104 so there’s the risk that they consume power many years 1 after service is terminated. And there are a couple of 2 other reasons why. I don’t think we’d want to create 3 an incentive to shift away from set-top box power to 4 LNBs to externally powered LNBs. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments? 6 **On, Sleep and Off Mode Tests** 7 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. So the next section is 8 the on, sleep, and off mode test. We begin with the 9 test configuration, which describes how the set-top box 10 must be configured for testing. 11 For the test configuration, DOE is proposing 12 that the set-top box should be connected to as many 13 display devices and clients as possible, depending on 14 the capabilities of the set-top box as described in the 15 table on this slide. So the way this table works is 16 the first three columns on the left ask whether the 17 set-top box meets certain criteria. Such as, does it 18 support connections to multiple display devices? Or 19 does it support DVR functionality? Or does it support 20 clients? 21 Based on the answers to these three 22 questions, you pick the row for which the set-top box 23 meets the three criteria and then look at the last two 24 columns to determine the connections to display devices 25 and clients. We’ll look at specific examples, but an 26 important thing to note here is that each of these rows 27 are mutually exclusive. That is, any set-top box will 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 105 satisfy all three criteria in the three columns on the 1 left, for only one of the rows. 2 These requirements are not specified in the 3 CEA standard but the standard requires that the entity 4 specifying the use of CEA 2043 must provide the 5 configuration in which the set-top box is connected to 6 display devices and clients. 7 So the first example here is a set-top box 8 that has an integrated DVR and supports connections to 9 multiple displays and clients. This set-top box meets 10 the criteria specified in the first three columns only 11 for the first row of the table. And therefore, 12 according to the last two columns, it must be connected 13 to one display device and one client as shown in this 14 figure. 15 The second example is a set-top box that does 16 not have DVR functionality, but it supports multiple 17 display devices and client connections. This 18 particular set-top box meets the criteria for the three 19 columns on the left for row three of the table. And so 20 it is connected to two display devices and one client 21 as shown in this image. 22 So once we determine how many displays and 23 clients need to be connected, we need to make the 24 connections. For connecting a display device to the 25 set-top box, DOE is proposing that the first preference 26 should be to use an HDMI connection, followed by 27 component video, s-video, composite video, and finally 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 106 if none of these connections are feasible, then any 1 other video interface must be used. This order is 2 proposed based on stakeholders’ feedback to the TV test 3 procedure NOPR which was published in January last 4

year. 5 Again, for connecting the client, DOE is 6 proposing to use an HNI connection in the order MoCA 7 followed by HPNA, WiFi, and then another -- any other 8 HNI connection. 9 So at this time, DOE requests comment on the 10 proposed test configuration which will be used 11 throughout testing for the on, sleep, and off modes. 12 DOE especially requests comment on the proposed 13 connections for the test configuration, which is 14 connecting to the multiple displays and clients. And 15 DOE is also requesting comment on the proposed order 16 for connecting a display device to the set-top box. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam. 18 MR. A. GOLDBERG: So, can you go back to the 19 table? Yeah, so this corresponds to, I think, table 20 one in the NOPR, right? 21 MS. THAKKAR: Right. 22 MR. A. GOLDBERG: So, what happens if the 23 device doesn’t fall into any of those columns? 24 MS. THAKKAR: Well, then it falls in the last 25 row where it’s just connected to one display device. 26 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Well, I’m thinking of a DVR 27 that supports one display device and clients -- I don’t 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 107 see where it fits in any row in that table. 1 MR. DOMMU: Could you repeat that? You said 2 how many clients would it support? 3 MR. A. GOLDBERG: It supports one directly 4 connected TV, not two. 5 MR. DOMMU: Okay. Then it wouldn’t be an x 6 in the first row. 7 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Right. It has a DVR. 8 MR. DOMMU: Okay. So that’s an x in the 9 second one. 10 MR. A. GOLDBERG: And it’s a multiroom 11 device, so it supports clients. 12 MR. DOMMU: So an x in the third, so it looks 13 like the fourth line. 14 MS. THAKKAR: Row four. 15 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Which one? 16 MS. THAKKAR: Row four. 17 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Oh -- 18 MR. DOMMU: So you just hook up one display 19 device and one client. 20 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Okay. Sorry. Thank you. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Gregg. 22 MR. HARDY: Gregg Hardy. So two comments. 23 My understanding, reading through the NOPR was that the 24 intent was to connect to three devices because the 25 average home has three TVs in it. But then this process 26 results in DVRs only being connected to two devices, 27 and that was confusing to me why you would sort of give 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 108 DVRs a break or different treatment from that regard. 1 MS. THAKKAR: So the intent was to enable 2 three streams when testing based on the data that there 3 are three TVs generally in the household. So when you 4 have DVR, as we’ll see later on in the presentation, 5 you will have three streams enabled, one of which is 6 going to a DVR -- 7 MR. HARDY: Right, and so, just to respond, 8 I would clearly distinguish between connected devices 9 and number of streams, and I would define the number of 10 streams in table two and keep the number of connected 11 devices consistent in table one to be three across all 12 product categories. 13 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. 14 MR. HARDY: And then my second comment is, it 15 doesn’t appear to me that we’re defining what a client 16 is, so a tester could hook up a smart TV or a thin 17 client set-top box, or any number of other clients, and 18 iPad, and it might make sense to define exactly what 19 that client is. In the case of an implementation where 20 there happens to be a thin client available, I’d 21 probably recommend it be tested with the thin client 22 that’s paired with that multiroom system. 23 MS. THAKKAR: Yeah, you’re right that we 24 don’t specify the client, but we do specify that the 25 first connection that is supported by the set-top box 26 in this list should be selected, so if the set-top box 27 supports MoCA then the client invariably will be 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 109 something that can hook up to a MoCA connection. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 2 MR. LANGILLE: Just a comment that -- more a 3 question. When you say support multiple display 4 devices, it occurred to me that I assume that you meant 5 multiple display devices with independent video going 6 to each one. But we need to put some language around 7 that to clarify. Lots of devices will have, for 8 instance, an HDMI and component, either one could be 9 used to deliver high definition video. You could 10 actually hook them both up at the same time and have 11 two displays, but it’s the same video. So we should 12 just clarify when you say multiple display devices, if 13 it’s with independent video, or, you know, just some 14 language. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 16 comments? Yes, Gary. 17 MR. LANGILLE: And one other comment. Dish 18 Network happens to be one of the -- the only companies 19 I was aware of that actually supported two directly 20 connected display devices in the past. Since we’re not 21 going to be selling -- since discontinued those models, 22 so I’m not sure if multiple display devices exist any 23 more. So if they don’t, we might be able to simplify 24 the table. 25 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, whether it supports 26 multiple displays or not, you’re still going to get to 27 the same answer on that table. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 110 MR. LANGILLE: Certainly. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeremy, thank you. Okay. 2 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. So for calculating the 3 average power for all the tests that are performed, DOE 4 is proposing two methods. The first is to record the 5 accumulated energy consumed over the time period for 6 each test and calculate the average power as the 7 accumulated energy divided by the time. This method is 8 as specified in the CEA standard. 9 The second method is to calculate the 10 arithmetic mean of all power samples measured over the 11 time period for each test. The power consumption 12 should be sampled at a rate of at least one sample per 13 second. This second method is not specified in CEA 14 2043 but DOE is proposing it because it is typical in 15 laboratory set ups to use this method as well. 16 So at this time, DOE requests comment on the 17 two proposed methods to calculate the average power 18 consumption. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 20 MR. LANGILLE: Sounds like a reasonable 21 request. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional thoughts? No 23 additional thoughts. Okay. 24 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. So moving on to the next 25 section, which is on mode tests. So DOE is proposing 26 two tests to measure the power consumption of the set27 top box in on mode. The first is an on-watch TV test, 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 111 which records power consumption while viewing SD and HD 1 channels on the connected display device. The second 2 test is called the multi-stream test, and it measures 3 the power consumption of the set-top box when multiple 4 principal functions, such as viewing the channel, 5 recording content, and playing back recorded content, 6 are performed simultaneously. 7 We’ll discuss the details for each of these 8 tests in a few minutes. But for both of these on mode 9 tests, DOE is proposing that the average power 10 consumption should be recorded over a period of two 11 minutes. This is because internal testing showed that 12 the average power consumption is generally stable 13 within two minutes, and this duration is sufficient to 14 produce repeatable results. This requirement is not 15 specified in the CEA standard, but CEA does require 16 that the entity specifying the use of the standard 17 should provide the time duration. 18 To perform the on-watch TV test, DOE is 19 proposing that the test should be performed according 20 to the steps listed here. So once the set-top box has 21 been configured and connected to the display devices 22 and clients, which we just discussed a few minutes ago, 23 one SD stream is enabled to view on a single connected 24 display device. That is, all the other connected 25 displays and clients should not have any content 26 streamed to them. The average power consumption should 27 be recorded for two minutes. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 112 For HD set-top boxes, the test should be 1 repeated with an HD stream instead of an SD stream. 2 So this test has been based off of CEA’s on3 Watch TV test, but there is a key difference. The CEA 4 standard specifies that HD set-top boxes should be 5 tested using an HD stream only, whereas DOE is 6 proposing to test them using both HD and SD streams. 7 The reason we’re doing this is because DOE does not 8 expect all content to be available in HD in the future. 9 That is, it is possible that some content is still 10 streamed in SD even for boxes that have HD capability. 11 This requirement, again, is consistent with that 12 specified in version 3.0 of the EnergyStar 13 specification. 14 So to calculate the average power consumption 15 for HD set-top boxes, DOE proposes that P-watch, which 16 is the power consumption in on-Watch TV mode should be 17 calculated as the average of the power consumption when 18 using SD and HD streams. DOE did consider alternate 19 weights for calculating P-watch for HD boxes, but it 20 did not find any data to indicate what would be 21 representative of consumer usage, or the percentage of 22 content that would not be available in HD. 23 So a few requests for comment. First, DOE 24 requests comment on the proposed method for the on25 Watch TV test. DOE also requests comment on using both 26 SD and HD streams for testing high definition boxes, 27 and also the percentage of streams that are available 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 113 in SD and HD for HD set-top boxes and whether the 1 proposed equation should be changed. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam. 3 MR. A. GOLDBERG: I wonder if there was any 4 testing done or evaluation done on whether power 5 consumption does vary with an HD box given an SD and an 6 HD signal. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Allen. 8 MR. TSAO: Yes, Allen with Navigant. We did 9 conduct some testing and there was -- some boxes had 10 some difference, and it varied. It was not 11 significant. Maybe it was less than a watt or so and I 12 don’t remember the exact values, but there was a 13 difference you could detect. 14 MR. A. GOLDBERG: So, okay, without taking 15 any position, it might be that testing once is 16 sufficient and doing it twice might yield no additional 17 value. And then second, was there any consideration of 18 this case where you’ve got an HD stream, an HD box, and 19 a SD output -- that is, I have an HD box with an HD 20 signal connected to an older television. I mean maybe 21 it’s irrelevant, based on the answer to the first 22 question I asked, but I mean if we’re worried about 23 fractions of a watt difference between HD and SD, there 24 may be some difference in that form as well. I 25 shouldn’t be suggesting that we cut the testing in half 26 and at the same time add a third, but maybe I’ll just 27 forget it all. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 114 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert. 1 MR. TURNER: There’s two things I’m not 2 seeing included. One is the bit rate, so the type of 3 content. I’ve suggested for my international sports 4 channel will be chess, because it’s so slow moving. 5 The other is the quality of the signal which can make 6 quite a significant difference to the different type of 7 performance. If you’ve got a poor signal quality, 8 you’ve got a lot of error correction, and that 9 increases the power. So the signal quality needs to be 10 defined. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 12 MR. LANGILLE: I guess my comment would be to 13 endorse what Adam’s saying, is that if the difference 14 through some sample measurement is fairly 15 insignificant, which we believe it is, then we prefer 16 just to simplify the test procedure and make the single 17 measurement. And Robert has some good points, but I’m 18 not sure how we could possibly address them. 19 MR. TURNER: 62087 does define minimum signal 20 strength requirements. And I think if you’re above 21 those, then error correction things tend to help ease 22 themselves out. EnergyStar does specify stream content 23 from a sort of a talking head to sports content. 24 Again, difficult to quantify exactly but it’s making an 25 attempt at it. 26 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Noah. 27 MR. HOROWITZ: Noah Horowitz, NRDC. I think 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 115 that there’s probably consensus to the extent there is 1 a power difference, HD would consume the same or a 2 little bit more than SD. But I think many people 3 believe SD content is decreasing in its percentage of 4 time being used, and it’s a small difference. So one 5 option, if you don’t want to change things would be to 6 simply say, to allow the tester if they want, only test 7 an HD and have 100 percent to that. If they want to go 8 to the time to do the SD, they could do that as well, 9 and if you do do that and if additional analysis shows 10 there is a big difference, then probably the weighting 11 of 50:50 is inappropriate. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Jennifer. 13 MS. SANFORD: Quick question on multi-stream. 14 Would that include picture in picture? 15

MS. THAKKAR: No. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Allen. 17 MR. TSAO: You can interpret the language as 18 -- I don’t think it would include picture in picture 19 based on the way the language is written. If you think 20 it’s unclear, just put in a comment on that. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert. 22 MR. TURNER: The other thing is when you talk 23 about high definition, what do you mean? 1080p, 1080i? 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on this 25 section? I’m going to propose we pause for lunch. 26 It’s now almost 12:15. We’ve made very good progress 27 this morning, covered a lot of ground. More to cover 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 116 as we return from lunch, we will return and start at 1 1:15. 2 Once again let me remind you, please wear 3 this badge visible while you’re walking around the 4 Forrestall building. For those of you that are new to 5 the facility, you can go down to the ground floor go 6 about 100 yards that way and then up two escalators and 7 you’re in our rather large cafeteria. That’s the best 8 place to eat around here. Don’t leave campus. This 9 room will be locked. You can leave your stuff, it’ll 10 be supervised, and see what else. You know where the 11 restrooms are. You might need an ID to get back 12 through the security portal. You can leave the rest of 13 your stuff here, enjoy lunch. See you back here about 14 1:15. 15 (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the meeting in 16 the above captioned matter was adjourned for lunch 17 recess, to reconvene at 1:15 p.m.) 18

19Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 117 AFTERNOON SESSION 1 1:37 p.m. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Welcome back. Let’s resume. 3 Before we broke for lunch, I neglected to recognize 4 Ken Rider who’s joining us via the web. Ken, are you 5

there? 6

MR. RIDER: Here. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: I’m sorry to leave you off. 8 Do you wish to jump back in where we left off 9 previously? 10 MR. RIDER: I mean I’m following along the 11 presentation on my -- I didn’t have any comments or 12 anything. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Oh, okay. The moderator, the 14 web master handed me a note suggesting you had a 15 question or a comment. 16 MR. RIDER: Not at this time. Thank you, 17 though. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So now 19 we’re going to proceed where we left off with Mansi. 20 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. Thanks, Doug. So, this 21 is the second test for on mode and it’s called the 22 multi-stream test. The multi-stream test has three 23 steps as can be seen in these blue boxes on the left. 24 The first step is to select the number of streams that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 118 will be enabled to display devices and clients based on 1 the priority listed in the table shown here. The 2 second step, after the number of streams are selected, 3 is to select the content that is streamed on each of 4 the streams. And finally, once we have the number of 5 streams and the content for each stream, the third step 6 is to perform the test. 7 So for the first step, which is to select the 8 number of streams, the set-top box at this point will 9 already be connected to the display devices and clients 10 based on the configuration table we saw earlier. So 11 once these connections are made, we need to select the 12 number of streams and prioritize the selection. These 13 are selected -- by using this table. So what this 14 table says is that the highest priority that is 15 supported by the set-top box for the connections that 16 have been made must be selected for streaming content 17 to output to a display device, record on a DVR, or 18 stream to a client. So if the set-top box can stream 19 to a display device, a DVR and a client, then priority 20 one must be used and one stream should be enabled to 21 each. 22 So using the same example that we saw before. 23 This is the set-top box that can be connected to 24 multiple display devices and clients, and it has a DVR. 25 So according to the multi-streaming table, this set-top 26 box meets the requirement for priority one, and so to 27 test it, I need to enable one stream to a display 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 119 device, one stream to record on a DVR, and one stream 1 to a connected client. Do you have a question? 2 PARTICIPANT: I’ll wait until the question 3 period. 4 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. So this is the second 5 example that we’ve seen earlier. This is a set-top box 6 that does not support DVR, but it does support 7 connections to multiple displays and clients. This 8 set-top box meets the requirement that’s listed in 9 priority three in the table, which requires two streams 10 to be enabled to display devices, and one stream 11 enabled to a client. 12 So the second step to perform the test, once 13 we know the number of streams being enabled, is to 14 select the content that will be streamed on each of 15 these streams. For the content, DOE proposes that the 16 content should be selected to output to a display 17 device, record on a DVR, or streamed to a connected 18 client. So to output to a display device, DOE’s 19 proposed method is adopted from CEA on-Watch TV test. 20 DOE proposes to select an SD stream for SD set-top 21 boxes and HD stream for HD set-top boxes, and view the 22 stream on the connected display device. That is, for 23 the multi-stream test, HD set-top boxes are tested 24 using an HD stream only, unlike the on-Watch TV test. 25 Additionally, DOE is proposing when there is more than 26 one display device that is connected, such as in the 27 second example we saw, then the content stream to each 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 120 display should be different. This requirement is in 1 addition to that specified in the CEA standard. 2 Next, to record on the DVR, DOE’s proposed 3 method is adopted from CEA’s on-Record Test. DOE 4 proposes that a channel should be selected using the 5 connected display device or client, and the program 6 should be recorded. In addition, again DOE proposes 7 that if more than one recording stream is enabled, then 8 the content being recorded on each should be different. 9 Finally, to stream content to a connected 10 client, DOE proposes that the first priority should be 11 to stream content that has been recorded previously, 12 that it’s playing back recorded content. The second 13 priority is to stream a channel. And finally, if the 14 other two methods are not feasible, then any other 15 streaming option should be selected. DOE selected this 16 hierarchy to ensure consistency and repeatability 17 between tests. 18 DOE expects that the power consumption will 19 be more when playing back content, because the hard 20 disk would be engaged than when viewing a channel. 21 For the first stream which requires playing 22 back content, DOE’s proposed method is adopted from the 23 on-Play test of the CEA standard. DOE proposes that a 24 previously recorded program should be selected and 25 viewed on a display device connected to the client. If 26 the client does not support streaming of recorded 27 content, then a channel should be streamed and viewed 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 121 on the connected display device. Again, this method is 1 adopted from the on-Watch TV test. As with streaming 2 to a display and recording on a DVR, DOE proposes that 3 if more than one stream is enabled to a client, then 4 the content on each stream should be different. 5 Going back to the same two examples. This is 6 the example that one stream is enabled to a display 7 device, one to record to a DVR, and one to a client. 8 So based on the proposed requirement for selecting 9 content, in this case, one channel will be viewed on 10 the display device connected to the set-top box. A 11 different stream will be used to record content to the 12 DVR. And, finally, a third stream will be used to 13 playback content on the connected client. 14 In the second example, which can stream to 15 only two display devices and a client, two different 16 channels should be selected and viewed on the two 17 display devices. For the client, the first option is 18 to playback content, but given the set-top box does not 19 support DVR, we cannot play back content, and therefore 20 we select the second option, which is to view a 21 channel. Again, this channel should be different than 22 the channel that is being viewed on the two display 23 devices. 24 So at this time, DOE requests comment on the 25 proposed requirements for streaming content to a 26 display device, recording content on a DVR, and 27 streaming content to a client. Specifically, DOE 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 122 requests comment on its proposed hierarchy for 1 streaming content to a client which is playing back 2 previously recorded content or by viewing a channel. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam. 4 MR. A. GOLDBERG: So let me see if I 5 understand the way table two works. The highest 6 priority selection, number one in the table, has a one 7 for display devices, one for recording on DVR, one for 8 connect to client. So if the device that we’re trying 9 to test is a DVR that can record zero, one, or two 10 programs at a time, and stream -- and output content to 11 zero, one, or two devices, the way you would set that 12 up would be to record one thing and play back one thing 13 off disk to a local device, plus one thing off disk a 14 remote device, right? 15 MS. THAKKAR: Well, to the display device 16 would be a channel. 17 MR. A. GOLDBERG: So look, it says one, one, 18 one. Right? 19

MS. THAKKAR: Correct. 20 MR. A. GOLDBERG: The first one is to a 21 display device, okay, so that’s playback off the DVR. 22

No? 23 MS. THAKKAR: No, it’s a live channel. 24 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Oh, sorry. I thought there 25 was a preference to not -- to record a content and not 26

tune content. 27 MS. THAKKAR: The preference is only when 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 123 you’re streaming to the client. So when it’s streaming 1 to a client, then you playback content. 2 MR. A. GOLDBERG: So the first -- so to -- so 3 going to a display device that’s got to be live content 4 unless that’s not possible, right? 5 MS. THAKKAR: Right. 6 MR. A. GOLDBERG: And recording on the DVR, 7 that’s recording a live content, but it’s got to be 8 different content. 9 MS. THAKKAR: Right. 10 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Okay. And then what’s sent 11 to a remote client is not live content, it’s got to be 12

DVR. 13 MR. A. GOLDBERG: I’m not sure I understand 14 the justification for why the local device would be 15 treated differently than the connected device. 16 MS. THAKKAR: The goal was to engage all the 17 different functionalities, so when you’re connecting a 18 display device directly to the set-top box, you’ll be 19 viewing a live channel, and when it’s streaming to a 20 client, through a display device, you’re viewing 21 playback, and that way you’re engaging the different 22 functionalities that the set-top box can perform. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: We have an additional comment 24 from Allen. 25 MR. TSAO: So, the reason is that with the 26 multirooms, a lot of different options out there, and 27 one of the common ones is that there are clients that 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 124 can just access the recorded content, but not the live 1 content, so there’s thin clients out there that can 2 access the content on the DVR, but not necessarily 3 access the live content. And so at this point we 4 thought the common case was that for the clients was to 5 access recorded. 6 MR. A. GOLDBERG: So without pointing 7 fingers, really? 8 MR. TSAO: The intention is that there are 9 thin clients that are able to access recorded -- 10 content that’s recorded on a DVR, but not live content. 11 MR. A. GOLDBERG: I think we’re all looking 12 surprised. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: So can you describe how you 14 make this so you’re not surprised? 15 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Well, I expected you say, 16 well, we believe that playing back off of a hard drive 17 takes more power than tuning, and that you would -- 18 that in this first round here, you would say playback 19 one recorded piece of content to the local display, 20 playback one recorded piece of content to a connected 21 client, and record something out there. That would 22 give you one tuner in use, one recorded stream and two 23 playback streams, right? 24 MR. A. GOLDBERG: But it seems like you’ve 25 got different selection criteria for each of the 26 columns, so display device should be live, but the 27 client device should be recorded. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 125 MR. BROOKMAN: And if you did it that way, 1 would that engage, as Mansi was saying, the different 2 potential modalities? Would it satisfy what they were 3 trying to do here, which is to get -- to be able to 4 demonstrate each case. 5 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Yeah, I don’t think it’s 6 possible to demonstrate each case. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles. 8 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I think I understand 9 what they want here and I think I approve of it. I’ll 10 have to think about this more, but we do want to know 11 how much power is used in the playback mode. I think, 12 Adam, as you were proposing it, we wouldn’t know -- we 13 would never measure that. 14 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Well, to be clear, I wasn’t 15 proposing anything, I’m just trying to understand what 16 was written. 17 MR. STEPHENS: With this lineup we get how 18 much power is used when it’s not -- when it’s tuning 19 and playing to a display device. We get how much it’s 20 using when it’s recording a channel with another tuner. 21 And we get how much it uses when it plays back to 22 anything -- when it plays back to a client. 23 Later, when I tried to understand in my 24 position, how much energy is being used every day, or 25 every week, or every year with this thing, I may have 26 to figure out what fraction of the time it’s playing a 27 channel, what fraction of the time it’s recording, and 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 126 what fraction of the time it’s playing back. But I 1 wouldn’t even bother with any of that unless I knew 2 what the power consumption was in each of those three 3 modes. 4 MR. A. GOLDBERG: But the way this is set up 5 is for a multi-stream device. You’ll end up with one 6 power number which is based on the sum of -- you know, 7 the power consumption for a device which is recording 8 one, watching one live and playing one back from disk. 9 You’re not going to be able to know what the 10 consumption is for playback. 11 MR. STEPHENS: Except that, I think, to my 12 comfort, I would probably assume that the power I would 13 expect to be used by that device would generally be at 14 that level or less than that. But I don’t know if it 15 would be more than that, so in other words, I will end 16 up with what a maximum power consumption would be, but 17 it could be less than that. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Several individuals would like 19 to speak. Jeremy, we’ll start with you. 20 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, I just want to clarify what 21 this test entails. So this is a single test, and in 22 this single test we’re doing multiple things at once. 23 We’re recording the energy consumption of that device. 24 So for priority one, we are playing back content and 25 displaying it on the client. We are recording content 26 through the DVR. And we also are outputting live TV to 27 a display. All those things are happening 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 127 simultaneously, and while those things are happening we 1 are recording the power. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert. 3 MR. TURNER: Just a comment, when you’re 4 talking about power in playback versus watching live 5 TV, when you’re watching live TV, every application I 6 know records at the same time because you’ve got live 7 pause, so you’re recording content to disk and 8 potentially erasing it afterwards, so your playback 9 will be a lower figure than -- because you don’t need 10 the tuners. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 12 MR. LANGILLE: I just wanted to comment that 13 I think there’s a couple of approaches to measure this 14 category, and I know in the CEA standard, we took the 15 approach of just measuring each mode, you know, like 16 how much in watching, how much recording, and how much 17 playing. Now, the advantage to that is that -- one 18 reason we did that is because that’s what I think EPA 19 duty cycles were, how the program was run, so we wanted 20 to make sure we supported that. But the disadvantage 21 to that is you’re not testing it with multiple 22 activities all at the same time. So I think what DOE 23 is introducing is, as a substitute for measuring the 24 modes, they are proposing that we measure a device 25 doing multiple things at the same time, you know, 26 recording, playing, tuning, it’s all happening. Which 27 I think is valid. My only question would be is does 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 128 that support everyone’s need? Because like Charlie, 1 you said, you won’t know the modal information the way 2 this is set up right now. You will know what I think 3 DOE is assuming is a more typical use of one of these 4 devices, which is to do multiple things at the same 5 time. Which is how they’re usually used. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Charlie. 7 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, to follow up on that, as 8 was pointed out by Robert, I think the only worse case 9 would be if everything was playback or recording. In 10 other words, you’re playing back and the DVR is -- in 11 other words, you’ve got three tuners going. So if you 12 had three tuners going and the way I see it here, the 13 way they’re prioritized, there’s only two. Right? 14 We’re recording one and we’re playing one. 15 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Or one if you can bring in 16 more than one channel on one tuner. 17 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. But in any case, can 18 you bring in three on one tuner? And if you can, well, 19 that’s great. But I guess what I’m saying is, if on 20 average the situation out there for me, trying to 21 understand the energy use of this thing over an hour or 22 over a day, this represents a kind of a average family 23 household case, then somebody on one television is 24 watching one thing, but there’s something being 25 recorded because somebody wants that recorded during 26 that hour, and you’ve got somebody in a bedroom 27 watching something on a client. Well, you know, that 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 129 tells me kind of what the average use of this thing 1 might be during a certain period of a day, and that’s 2 kind of what ultimately I want to get to, is how much 3 is this thing, on average using during a certain period 4 of the day when it’s in use. 5 So I don’t know. I think it may -- I could 6 go with any number of modifications, but I understand 7 this and I think it might be useful. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 9 MR. LANGILLE: So then I think this is 10 generally acceptable. I mean, it’s just a different 11 way of measuring, of kind of getting at the same 12 result. But the one question would be then to EPA and 13 the EnergyStar program is historically you’ve required 14 a test procedure that measured each mode so then you 15 could then multiply by duty cycling and get the 16 results. So the question would be, can you -- with 17 this -- so for the next version of EnergyStar, you 18 wouldn’t be able to have modes. You’d have so many 19 hours in this mode, basically. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your name. 21 MS. KAPLAN: Katherine Kaplan from EPA’s 22 EnergyStar program, and we’ll align with DOE’s test 23 procedure. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Paul. 25 MR. GLIST: I was only going to observe that 26 for what Mr. Stephens is looking for, this may not 27 capture it because there are different uses of second 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 130 and third televisions in the home than there are for 1 the primary television, and this is working on the 2 assumption, I believe, that they’re all running all the 3 time on whatever hours you want to assign to the 4 metric. And so if you’re actually trying to capture a 5 metric that is more realistic than that, I’m not 6 certain that this meets your need. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, 8 Jeremy. 9 MR. DOMMU: Just one comment on that. I mean 10 -- I think we could all recognize that based on the 11 functionality of a set-top box you could be performing 12 thousands of different iterations of either playing or 13 recording or streaming to a thin client. So really the 14 purpose of this test is just to have one single test 15 that reduces testing burden and best represents the 16 energy consumption of the set-top box. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Gregg. 18 MR. HARDY: Gregg Hardy. It also, I don’t 19 think, assumes that these other TVs are running all the 20 time. It assumes that they’re running during the five 21 hours that are allocated to multi-streaming in the DOE 22 duty cycle. 23 The other thing I would say is I think that 24 there are possibly some -- there are clients out there 25 that look to the server for recorded content, to get 26 live streams from the head end. I think those are the 27 cable hybrid clients and maybe that’s why the DVR 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 131 assumption, you know, you assume that you would stream 1 by hard drive to the -- that’s probably that cable 2 hybrid client. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We’re about to move on. 4 Final comments here? Okay. 5 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Just one last thing. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam. 7 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Thank you. This table of 8 nine things in table two, it’s for a device that can do 9 the one-one-and one? That’s the test you do and the 10 rest of the tables are all ... right? 11 MR. DOMMU: Right. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: All right. Mansi. 13 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. So the final step for 14 the multi-stream test after determining the number of 15 streams and the content for each stream is to perform 16 the test. So to perform the test, enable the streams 17 that are feasible based on the connections and the 18 priority, and then record the average power consumption 19 for two minutes. 20 Comparing DOE’s multi-stream test to the CEA 21 standard, we already touched on this a little bit, but 22 DOE does not exclusively specify -- excuse me -- CEA 23 does not explicitly specify a multi-stream test, but it 24 does contain most of the information that DOE has 25 combined for the multi-stream test. The CEA standard 26 specifies individual tests for recording, playing back, 27 and viewing a channel. It also provides 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 132recommendations for concurrent testing of network set1 top boxes and the different tests that may be performed 2 on different set-top boxes. 3 Finally, CEA states that the entity requiring 4 the use of the standard must provide the specific 5 information about the configuration and the tests to be 6 performed. 7 So at this time DOE requests any further 8 comment on the multistream test and the priority in 9 table two that we saw a little while ago. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments? We’ve 11 covered it. 12 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. So the multistream test 13 that DOE is proposing will enable a maximum of three 14 streams at any given time. DOE proposed this based on 15 data published by the Nielsen Company in January 2011 16 which states that the average number of TVs per US 17 household is 2.5. DOE rounded this value to three TVs 18 per household and assumed that a set-top box may 19 perform up to three functions at a time. 20 At this time, DOE requests comment about 21 whether it is reasonable to enable three streams for 22 the multistream test, or whether a different number of 23 streams should be enabled. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on that? No comment. 25 We also in this room accept affirmation. 26 MS. SANFORD: This is Jen Sanford with Cisco. 27 We’ll be providing you some written comments on that. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 133 We’re not sure it matters. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 2 MR. LANGILLE: Yeah, I look forward to 3 Jennifer’s comments, but I mean it seems reasonable. 4 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. Thank you. So DOE 5 recognizes that there may be set-top boxes that are 6 capable of streaming more than three streams at a time. 7 DOE considered implementing a maximum power test. We 8 have not proposed this in the NOPR. 9 A maximum power test would test the set-top 10 box at maximum functionality, that is in this test as 11 many streams as supported by the set-top box would be 12 enabled and would provide content to clients, display 13 devices and DVR. Again, DOE has not proposed this test 14 in the NOPR, but is requesting feedback on the 15 possibility of including such a test at this time. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 17 MR. LANGILLE: It’s our opinion that going 18 into some kind of maximum configuration wouldn’t really 19 change the results much. The drive may be accessing a 20 little faster, but the fact that all the major 21 subsystems are now active captures the majority of all 22 power consumed, so I don’t see a need for it beyond 23 what you have. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional thoughts? I see a 25 few heads nodding. Robert. 26 MR. TURNER: Depends on what you mean by 27 maximum power test. This already requires pretty much 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 134 maximum power on the product, which includes any 1 peripherals attached. So worst case, in operation plus 2 worst case peripherals. You’re going to be 10, 20, 30 3 watts below that in some cases. So it’s not a valued 4 number. It’s more the size of the power cable than 5 anything else. The test you’ve got is reasonable. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens. 7 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I guess 8 unless I had some data that showed me what fraction of 9 the time in the course of a year these things actually 10 operated in that mode, I’m not sure I could comment on 11 whether it would be useful. But the real answer, if I 12 find out that the answer is it almost never operates in 13 that mode, I don’t know why we’d bother to measure it. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Moving on. 15 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. So before we leave the 16 on mode test, one last opportunity to provide comment 17 on anything that we may not have discussed already, 18 including the two minute time period for the test 19 itself. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments? 21 MS. THAKKAR: So moving on to the test 22 procedures in sleep mode. DOE is proposing to have two 23 tests for testing in sleep mode only for those set-top 24 boxes that support the sleep mode capability and can 25 transition from sleep to on mode within 30 seconds. 26 The two tests are a manual sleep test in 27 which the set-top box enters sleep mode manually, 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 135 through a remote, and an auto power down test, or APD 1 test, in which the set-top box enters sleep mode 2 automatically after a period of user inaction. 3 DOE is proposing the time period for each 4 test in sleep mode should be between four to eight 5 hours. DOE expects that this time duration will 6 capture the reduced power consumption states such as 7 deep sleep or special sleep modes as the set-top box 8 powers down gradually over time. The proposed time 9 duration is also approximately the half to full 10 duration of an overnight time period. 11 Again, similar to the on mode tests, the 12 proposed time duration is not specified in the CEA 13 standard, but it does require that the entities 14 specifying the use of the standard should provide the 15 time duration. 16 At this time, DOE requests comment on the 17 proposed duration for the sleep mode test and whether 18 this duration should be increased or decreased to 19 better represent the set-top box power consumption in 20 sleep modes. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Noah. 22 MR. HOROWITZ: Noah Horowitz, NRDC. We agree 23 it shouldn’t be instantaneous measurement, but should 24 be an average over a certain period of time, and four 25 hours seems reasonable. 26 One thing we need to think about is potential 27 gaming of the system. So let’s say the manufacturer or 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 36 service provider might say between one and five in the 1 morning, you go to a very deep sleep and if it’s 2 between one and five, at 4:55 you ramp back up and you 3 get a very good test reading, even though that’s not 4 representative of what happens over the whole day. So 5 maybe the test needs to be done between normal viewing 6 hours, between eight in the morning and eight in the 7 afternoon or something like that. Or there could be a 8 caveat in terms of verification testing, the test could 9 be done at any time of the day and you need to get the 10 same answer. Thank you. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes. Your 12 name, please. 13 MR. JOSEPH: Kuriacose Joseph of DirecTV. 14 It’s a question for clarification. So if a set-top box 15 has a sleep mode and doesn’t recover within 30 seconds, 16 we will not measure a sleep mode for that set-top box, 17 is that the proposal? 18 MS. THAKKAR: Right. 19 MR. JOSEPH: Okay. That’s -- 20 MS. THAKKAR: So the set-top box has to meet 21 the sleep mode definition to perform the sleep mode 22

tests. 23 MR. JOSEPH: Yes, so essentially, even if the 24 box is capable of saving power in the house, we are 25 saying we are not going to count that measurement? 26 Right? 27 MR. BROOKMAN: If it doesn’t qualify. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 137 MR. JOSEPH: If it doesn’t qualify, even 1 though it’s low power box. It seems to be an issue 2 with the method. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Adam first. 4 MR. A. GOLDBERG: So, just to be clear. In 5 order for there to be H sleep manual, a non-zero value, 6 it’s got to transition from that sleep mode to on in 7 less than 30 seconds, and the same sort of test for H 8 sleep APD, right? 9

MS. THAKKAR: Yes. 10 MR. A. GOLDBERG: So if a box takes 35 11 seconds to go from sleep to not sleep, then the 12 measurements, I think, are what, 24 hours on, right? 13 MS. THAKKAR: Right. 14 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Which doesn’t seem to be 15 accommodated in table three. 16

MR. DOMMU: I’m not sure -- 17 MS. THAKKAR: Is that table three in the 18

NOPR? 19

MR. A. GOLDBERG: Yes. 20 MS. THAKKAR: I believe those are EnergyStar 21 rated. 22 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Well, I don’t know, what 23 I’m saying is there’s no entry in table three that has 24 sleep set to zero. 25 MR. DOMMU: No, the way it works is this. 26 Our definition of sleep has that requirement that it 27 must transition from sleep to on within 30 seconds, 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 138 otherwise it’s not considered sleep. It’s not 1 considered sleep, there’s no point of doing the sleep 2 tests. And the test procedure you would set, the power 3 in sleep mode, equal to the power in on on those tests. 4 So therefore, when you do those calculations with the 5 AEC at the end, you would just substitute the on mode 6 power consumption for those points where it requires a 7 sleep mode power consumption. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Noah. 9 MR. HOROWITZ: Noah with NRDC. A point 10 raised earlier this morning, the transition to on mode. 11 Does DOE have a proposed definition of what the box 12 needs to be able to do to be considered on? Is it 13 simply changing a channel? Is it accessing an updated 14 program guide? I’m curious what your definition would 15 be. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Allen. 17 MR. TSAO: So we have -- at the end we’ll 18 cover the verification test for the sleep to on mode 19 transition, but it basically follows CEA 2043. I 20 believe it is just viewing. 21 MS. THAKKAR: Viewing a channel. 22 MR. TSAO: I think that’s what the CEA 2043. 23 MS. THAKKAR: Ensure it’s on when you can 24 start viewing a channel. 25 MR. HOROWITZ: So if it was the last channel 26 selected, that’s different than if I get 438 and 72, 27 I’m going to get the right channel, versus if there is 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 139 recorded content on the DVR, can I see the DVR menu? 1 Hopefully it’s all of those, but it’s unclear to me. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 3 MR. LANGILLE: I guess my only comment would 4 be that we’ll try to provide some comments to this and 5 the 30 seconds -- I think that we’re wrapped up in the 6 30 second limit, and I haven’t figured it out yet, but 7 I’m hoping some way we can accommodate both making 8 these measurements, even if it takes longer than 30 9 seconds, and then also somehow maybe during the -- 10 later in the document or during a rating 30 seconds 11 becomes some limit or something. I think -- I mean, 12 like Adam said, if it takes 35 seconds, you could save 13 an awful lot of energy if we allowed that to happen, 14 even if a bunch of customers didn’t like it and turned 15 it off, it’s still going to be that whole bunch that 16 keep it on. So it could result in substantial energy 17 savings. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeremy. 19 MR. LANGILLE: I just hate to see a hard 20 cutoff. 21 MR. DOMMU: And I think that’s a good 22 comment. We definitely encourage you to provide those 23 comments or suggestions to us, and we’ll take them 24 under consideration for sure. 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments before we move 26 on? Okay. 27 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. So to perform the sleep 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 140 mode test, first certain conditions need to be ensured 1 while the set-top box is in the sleep mode. The first 2 condition is that no recording events must be scheduled 3 over the entire duration of the test. This requirement 4 is slightly different from the CEA standard which 5 specifies that no recording events should be scheduled 6 while the set-top box is in the sleep mode. DOE is 7 proposing that no events are scheduled over the entire 8 duration, which will also include the time spent in on 9 mode prior to transitioning to sleep mode, to ensure 10 that the set-top box can transition to sleep mode when 11 it has to do so. 12 The second requirement that DOE is proposing 13 is that if a recording can be scheduled, then it must 14 be done 24 or more hours in the future. Again, this is 15 a requirement specified in addition to that provided in 16 the CEA standard. 17 At this time, DOE requests comment on the 18 proposed scheduled recording requirements. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 20 MR. LANGILLE: Seems reasonable. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Adam. 22 MR. A. GOLDBERG: That’s the scheduled 23 recording events. It doesn’t say anything about 24 whether recording unscheduled events, right? 25 MS. THAKKAR: So no recording should be 26 scheduled for when the test is being performed. And a 27 recording should be scheduled 24 or more hours in the 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 141 future. 1 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Okay. Again, without 2 respect to whether actual recording is happening? 3 MS. THAKKAR: Yeah, at this time it’s not 4 clear if a recording is already occurring. Is that 5

your -- 6 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Well, I’m saying, there are 7 boxes that are always recording. 8 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Gregg. 10 MR. HARDY: This is Gregg. I think a 11 clarification might be needed. These are sort of user12 programmed scheduling, as opposed to, you know, TiVo -- 13 MR. A. GOLDBERG: That is what I expected 14 someone to say. 15 MR. HARDY: So maybe we can clarify by just 16 saying scheduled recording or something like that. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other thoughts on this 18 subject? Yes, Noah. 19 MR. HOROWITZ: I guess a global question is 20 to the extent manufacturers have what’s called a 21 speculative recording where it’s always recording even 22 though the user might not ask for a particular show. 23 How is that handled throughout the whole test method in 24 terms of setup conditions and whether that’s considered 25 a scheduled event or not, and how that plays into the 26 TEC calculation. 27 MR. BROOKMAN: Jennifer. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 142 MS. SANFORD: I’d like to echo that comment 1 because we’ve had a lot of questions from our engineers 2 about buffering, and, you know, so-called live content 3 that’s coming in, actually is getting recorded so that 4 people can pause and rewind, and things -- is that 5 considered recording? Is that live? What is that? So 6 clarity around that question would be helpful. 7 MS. THAKKAR: Right, and we can definitely 8 provide that. 9 MR. DOMMU: And I would put it back on you 10 guys because it is relatively unclear in the NOPR. I 11 think we’d agree, and if you have recommendations for 12 how that should be handled, we’d very much appreciate 13 that. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Gregg first. 15 MR. HARDY: This is Gregg. I would just add 16 that I think the test procedure actually works fairly 17 well the way it is, which is that if you’re doing 18 speculative recording after someone has powered the box 19 down or it’s auto powerdown, you sort of, you know, 20 your resulting power level is your resulting power 21 level, which would be higher if you’re doing that. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam. 23 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Just to make it clear, 24 there’s often -- there’s a box maybe not recording, it 25 may be just always recording, or it may find shows that 26 it thinks you might want to watch and record those when 27 they’re on and not record anything when they’re not, 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 143 which I think is what you mean when you say it’s 1 speculative recording, I think. But -- whatever. I 2 think that the way it’s written is clear enough that 3 the box is doing what the box is doing, measure the 4 power and move on, right. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Noah. 6 MR. HOROWITZ: A minor quick comment. So 7 that’s speculative -- generic term, speculative 8 recording, that could probably be disabled during set 9 up and is that allowed to be done? That’s the sort of 10 clarification we’re looking for. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Can we just say what 12 speculative recording is, just so we’re clear. Yes. 13 MR. HARDY: Well, I think Adam stated it, 14 which is when you -- if you have a show that you are 15 watching regularly, it will automatically record that 16 show. You’ll get unrepeatable results. The results 17 will vary depending on your viewing pattern, so it’s 18 actually an issue to just let the process play out and 19 if a speculative recording happens, then it happens. 20 So I think that’s something that needs careful 21 consideration. If you’ve got some recommendations on 22 how to get repeatable results and test results that 23 mirror sort of the average consumption that people 24 would normally see. That’s tricky. 25 MR. A. GOLDBERG: I think that what you’re 26 calling speculative we might think about in terms like 27 a user agent or something -- user agent initiated 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 144 recording. Different from just always recording. I 1 think you can do things where you’re always recording 2 and sometimes what you’re recording is what it thinks 3 you’re going to watch. Or you do things where if it 4 thinks there’s something you’re going to watch and 5 record it, otherwise not record it. 6 I’m not aware of devices doing that, though. 7 I mean they’re either recording always, I think, or 8 only recording when something is manually scheduled. 9 But maybe I could -- maybe in comments I’ll have some 10 recommendation on that. 11 MR. DOMMU: In a moment Mansi is going to 12 speak about this requirement that there’s no network 13 initiated activities that are occurring during the 14 sleep mode test, and it’s potential that this issue of 15 recordings of the non-user initiated recordings could 16 be kind of covered and related to that, so that might 17 help to form the conversation as well. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 19 MR. LANGILLE: Speculative recording may be 20 covered an if by the current language, because it does 21 say that you must assure that there’s no recording 22 events scheduled to occur during the test. Now, with 23 speculative recording, it usually will continuously 24 search what program’s going to be on, and when it sees 25 one that it thinks you’re going to like it sets a 26 recording for it. So if the user has -- or the tester 27 has a way to see -- just check, you know, are there any 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 145 speculative recordings going to occur during the test 1 and verify that there aren’t, then things could be 2 okay. But if they don’t have access to that 3 information and it just kind of happens, then I don’t 4 see how they could accommodate it. So we’ll have to 5 think through comments and some more discussion maybe, 6 figure that out. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Any additional 8 contributions at this point? Robert. 9 MR. TURNER: I think that’s why you’re going 10 to get a difference between testing at a manufacturer’s 11 site and testing in the real world. The manufacturer’s 12 site you won’t have speculative recordings because 13 there’s no history to go on. In the real world, the 14 viewer has built a period of history which that box has 15 learned. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Gregg. 17 MR. HARDY: This is Gregg. Per Jeremy’s 18 comment, if we do treat speculative recording as a 19 network initiated activity, there’s a mechanism in the 20 test procedure that says if the power level jumps up, 21 then that means that a network initiated event has 22 happened and you either start over or -- I didn’t 23 actually follow all the complexity there. But there is 24 a mechanism for handling that, right, with the idea of 25 pulling that out. 26 MR. DOMMU: That’s right, and Mansi’s 27 probably just about to speak on that very issue. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 146 MR. BROOKMAN: So you want to add anything 1 more at this point? 2 MS. THAKKAR: I think if we discuss the next 3 issue it might guide this conversation. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let’s move on then. 5 MS. THAKKAR: So the second condition that 6 must be maintained while the sleep mode tests are being 7 performed is that network activities should not occur, 8 that is, service provider network initiated actions, 9 such as content downloads or software updates that 10 require transition to on mode should not occur for the 11 four to eight hour test duration. And local network 12 initiated actions, such as mobile applications that 13 require transition to on mode should also not be 14 scheduled over the test duration. 15 These requirements are being proposed to 16 ensure that the set-top box remains in sleep mode 17 through testing -- while testing for the sleep mode. 18 It might not always be possible to disable network 19 initiated actions, especially the service provider 20 network initiated activities. In the event that these 21 activities cannot be disabled, DOE proposes a method to 22 monitor for these activities. For input power less 23 than or equal to one watt a linear regression through 24 all power readings should have a slope less than ten 25 milliwatts per hour. If this is not so, the test 26 should be restarted or extended until this condition is 27 achieved. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 147 For input powers greater than one watt, the 1 linear regression through all power readings should 2 have a slope less than one percent of the measured 3 input power per hour. Again, if this condition is not 4 met, the test may be restarted or extended until this 5 condition is achieved. If the test is extended beyond 6 eight hours to achieve the desired condition, the 7 average power consumption over the entire test duration 8 should be measured and reported. 9 So at this time, DOE requests comment on the 10 proposed method to address network initiated 11 activities. We also request comment on the proposed 12 approach as well as any other approaches that may 13 capture the transition of the set-top box from sleep to 14 on mode when the occurrence of such activities cannot 15 be disabled. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Why don’t you go back to the 17 preceding slide. Okay. Comments. Yes, Adam. 18 MR. A. GOLDBERG: So what I take from this is 19 if the box has a spike in energy consumption of 20 significance of any duration, then we restart or extend 21 the test. And it strikes me that -- without speaking 22 TiVo, it strikes me that it’s not at all unreasonable 23 to think that there are boxes that are going to wake up 24 every hour or two, look around, say nothing’s new, go 25 back to sleep, and that’s their normal state. You 26 can’t turn it off. You can’t not do that. So you 27 wouldn’t be able to ever measure the power consumption 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 148 with this procedure. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeremy, do you want to -- 2 MR. DOMMU: Sure. I would just say the 3 intent here is, you know, we’ve heard from many service 4 providers, many manufacturers, that box could wake up, 5 download new on demand content, update the program. We 6 don’t want to measure that during this sleep mode test. 7 That’s why we’re including that. So if it’s not 8 possible to disable that, or to prevent that from 9 happening, we certainly welcome your comments on how we 10 could test sleep mode and ensure that that condition 11 doesn’t happen. 12 MR. A. GOLDBERG: I think there’s a 13 difference between waking up and spending a half hour 14 downloading EPG data and stuff. And waking up and 15 saying, oh, nothing’s new and going back to sleep. And 16 so what I think is written here is, if I build a box so 17 that every hour on the hour it wakes up, looks around 18 the home network to see if anything’s new, takes it 19 about ten seconds, and then it goes back into lowest 20 power setting. It’s not downloading anything. Nothing 21 new is happening. It’s entirely predictable. Every 22 hour on the hour it spends ten seconds looking around. 23 That seems like sleep mode. But I don’t think that 24 using this process we would ever be able to measure 25 sleep mode on that box. 26 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeremy. 27 MR. DOMMU: I mean it’s the slope that we’re 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 149 measuring here, right, so over an extended period of 1 time of four to eight hours, if it’s doing what you 2 described it to do of only waking up for a couple 3 seconds, I don’t think -- and I want your input -- but 4 it seems to me that that likely wouldn’t affect this 5 slope that much that that would ultimately cancel out 6

anyway. 7 MR. A. GOLDBERG: I’m not understanding your 8 slope then. If I have a box that’s drawing 500 9 milliwatts and once an hour it draws 15 watts for ten 10 seconds, what’s the slope. 11 MR. DOMMU: I think the term power samples is 12 not made clear. So what you have to do in this case is 13 you have to sample the power once a second for the 14 entire duration, and if it spikes in the middle there, 15 what you’re doing is you’re doing a linear regression 16 through all the samples. If it spikes for a very short 17 amount of time, it’s likely it won’t affect your linear 18 reggression of slope because it should be flat over 19 that duration if it’s a short duration. 20 Now, if it’s a long duration, then your 21 regression line is probably going to have some kind of 22 slant or tilt to it due to the -- when you calculate 23 the regression. I don’t know if that makes -- it will 24 affect the slope due to the duration of that spike and 25 how large that spike is. 26 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary, go ahead. 27 MR. LANGILLE: Yeah, I was just going to say 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 150 that I agree with Adam that -- I mean, I understand the 1 test. I think it’s a Baronian way to come up to see if 2 anything’s happening, but we have to accommodate boxes 3 that could be up for as much as five minutes every 4 hour, you know, to do various updates. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: You should be able to measure 6 that though, yes? 7 MR. LANGILLE: Yes, well, we just need to 8 make sure that this method will allow for that somehow. 9 And I don’t know. We have to do some analysis, I guess 10 to figure that out. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Allen, and Charlie, please 12 stand up. 13 MR. TSAO: Yes, that’s the goal. I mean 14 we’re trying to take an average measurement that 15 probably excludes these minor events, because maybe the 16 average power doesn’t really change by having these 17 five minute interval increases for short period of 18 time. So any method to factor that out or eliminate it 19 is welcome, if you guys have a different suggestion. 20 MR. LANGILLE: Yeah I guess the challenge is 21 that, you know, every system’s different and one system 22 could take -- let’s say it comes up during that five 23 minutes or ten seconds, whatever that design supports, 24 and it says, okay, there’s a movie for me to load and 25 it takes an hour. Now obviously, you want to detect 26 that. Or if it comes up and says, oh, new software 27 available and it takes 30 minutes to download these 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 151 software. You want to check that. But, you know, the 1 question is at what level do you not want to detect. 2 In one system it could just update the changes to the 3 guide in two minutes and 16 seconds, while -- we’ve got 4 to make sure this algorithm works such that, you know, 5 how do we not detect that but detect all the other 6 things, so -- just got to figure out how to analyze 7 that. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 9 MR. STEPHENS: To pick up where Gary just 10 left off, Charlie Stephens, I think you also need to go 11 back to the definition of sleep mode based on what Adam 12 was saying, it sounds like he has a mode that’s non13 user selectable, it just is the nature of the beast, 14 that its sleep mode looks like ten seconds per hour of 15 15 watts, and the rest of the time it’s at 4 watts or 16 whatever it sits at in its lower power state. The 17 average power in that mode might be 4.7 watts or 18 something. I mean it -- that sounds to me like a 19 different kind of low power mode. If you can 20 accommodate that in the definition of what this low 21 power state is, then I would measure it and that would 22 -- and 4.7 watts might be its answer for how -- but 23 then you have to go to -- the next question is, how 24 many hours a day does this machine do that? In other 25 words, specifically, wake up, see nothing, and go back 26 to sleep. Versus, wake up and oh, I need to record an 27 hour long program in the next 30 minutes, starting in 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 152 30 minutes. Well, that’s a different -- that’s more 1 like on mode by the time it starts recording the 2

program. 3 So it’s a combination of definition, how you 4 measure whatever mode is defined as its low power 5 stage, and then later deciding how many hours a day it 6 spends in which state. But I think there ought to be - 7 - the test procedure needs to be able to accommodate 8 all of this within its definitions, within its 9 measurement protocols, and then later when we try to 10 figure out how much time each of these things spend in 11 what mode. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam. 13 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Yeah, I might have been 14 exactly wrong in my understanding of the way this 15 works, because I went back and looked at the proposed 16 language in the NOPR, and it just says, linear 17 regression throughout power reading -- through all 18 power readings. And I think that if we’re talking 19 about taking readings of something that increases over 20 time, you’d end up with a line with a slope. But 21 that’s not what I was describing. You’ve got a system 22 where it’s -- all your samples are going to be 500 23 milliwatts, except for brief periods where it’s 15 24 watts, and I guess -- I think you do a linear 25 regression -- simple linear regression across that 26 sample size, that’s the same as average power over that 27 time. In which case, I’m not entirely sure that 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 153 catches the network initiated stuff or not. It kind of 1 depends on, you know, what we’re trying to do is find a 2 case where nothing untoward has happened and we’re 3 actually measuring a typical case with no 4 externalities. And if the average power over the eight 5 hour time is -- I’m sorry, the slope is always going to 6 be flat, it’s never going to be -- it’s never going to 7 be -- it’s never going to be non-zero. Because you can 8 have an average power. It’s not -- we’re not measuring 9 an increasing thing, we’re measuring a flat line with 10 occasional spikes. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Over to Gregg. 12 MR. HARDY: I think there’s probably 13 agreement in the room that the real unusual events that 14 don’t happen multiple times a day, so if you’re pushing 15 movies on to a box a couple of times a week or 16 something, that could take an hour or two, but that’s 17 not normally happening. We don’t want the sleep test 18 to occur then. But on the other side, it could be that 19 through the design, five minutes every hour the box is 20 deliberately, without any user intervention, waking up 21 to do something. It’s not to watch TV, it’s to check 22 to see if you recorded something or if you have to go 23 for an update or whatever, and we think those things, 24 if they’re happening all the time, they should be 25 included in the sleep, and that’s why we have a 26 multiple hour sleep test. 27 What I don’t understand, and I think we’re 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 154 hearing from the group, is is this proposal a way to 1 address that thing we’re trying to capture, and I can’t 2 get my arms around that. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie, you want to follow up 4 here. 5 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, Charlie Stephens. Just 6 really quickly. I keep going back to the definition 7 and it basically says that sleep mode is a mode where 8 the thing is not providing any primary function. And 9 by that I assume that means recording a show, playing 10 back a show, but I don’t know whether it’s a primary 11 function of a device that automatically wakes up every 12 hour for ten seconds and looks around. Is that a 13 primary function of this device or is it not? It seems 14 like it would be helpful to define that. Somehow you 15 have to take all these behaviors that we’re talking 16 about and categorize them as sleep mode or low power 17 mode or primary function, based on the definitions that 18 we’re now working with. So I just reiterate that we 19 need to go back and look at our definitions and make 20 sure that what we -- we’re sure of what’s included and 21 what isn’t, and then we’ll know what to do. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Gregg. 23 MR. HARDY: This is Gregg. The current 24 definitions of primary function sort of do work for me 25 in this regard because I think the maintenance 26 activities that we’re talking about doing at nighttime 27 aren’t primary functions from my perspective. So the 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 155 way the spec is currently written sort of works for me. 1 I echo Noah’s comments. I think that we all sort of 2 agree with the intention that is here, to exclude the 3 things that are once a month or once a week activities, 4 include the sort of scheduled, periodic events that are 5 part of sleep mode. 6 And I have a second point that’s a slight 7 shift in gears, if we’re ready to maybe move on from 8 this a little bit -- 9 MR. BROOKMAN: I think we’re ready. 10 MR. HARDY: Okay. It’s related. It’s the 11 fact that set-top boxes that when they wake for a 12 maintenance event, either to download software or even 13 to record a prescheduled show, if they auto powerdown 14 so that you’re in a nighttime, the box is asleep, it 15 wakes to record, or wakes to download software, if it 16 quickly goes to sleep it’ll use less energy than a box 17 that takes, say, four hours to go back to sleep again. 18 And so if we could do some thinking about how we can 19 capture that difference in the test procedure -- one 20 way would be to just measure the amount of time it 21 takes to return to sleep state from those various 22 maintenance activities. There are probably other ways 23 to do it as well. But it does seem to me to be 24 important to capture that. 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Any additional comments 26 here? I guess not. Okay, moving on. 27 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. So after the initial 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 156 conditions have been set up, to perform the sleep mode 1 test itself, the first test is a manual sleep test. 2 Again, if the set-top box cannot be placed in sleep 3 mode or cannot transition from sleep to on mode within 4 30 seconds, then the test should be skipped, and the 5 power consumption in manual sleep, which is P-sleep 6 manual, shall be set equal to the power consumption in 7 the on-Watch TV test. 8 If the set-top box can be placed in sleep 9 mode, then it must be operated in the multi-stream 10 configuration for at least five minutes if the set-top 11 box supports multi-streaming, or it should be operated 12 in the on-Watch TV configuration for at least five 13 minutes. The power button on the remote for the set14 top box and all locally connected display devices or 15 clients should be pressed to place all devices into 16 sleep mode. At this point, the set-top box remote 17 should not be used or moved at all. It must be ensured 18 that the set-top box and clients are in sleep mode by 19 verifying that no channel viewing is supported by the 20 set-top box. 21 Finally, record the average power consumption 22 over the test duration of four to eight hours unless 23 the test duration is extended for network activities as 24 we just discussed. 25 So DOE’s proposed test to measure power 26 consumption for the manual sleep test is similar to the 27 test specified in CEA for sleep mode. But there are 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 157some differences. First, DOE is proposing to set P1 sleep manual equal to P-Watch if the test cannot be 2 performed. The CEA standard does not specify this. 3 Second, DOE proposes that the set-top box should be 4 operated in on mode for at least five minutes prior to 5 transitioning to sleep mode. CEA does not specify a 6 standard period of time the set-top box is in on mode. 7 Finally, DOE is proposing only one of the three methods 8 that are specified in the CEA standard to ensure that 9 the set-top box has entered sleep mode. This is that 10 no channel be viewed or recording is supported on the 11 set-top box. 12 At this time, DOE requests comment on the 13 proposed test method for the manual sleep test. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 15 MR. LANGILLE: I just wanted to clarify that, 16 I know our set-top boxes, I’m not sure about others, 17 but when a customer actually turns it off, we have a 18 pre -- like a graphic -- it’s like a screensaver, and 19 it’s quite useful because it reminds the customer to 20 turn off the TV. So, I’d like to make sure that if DOE 21 agrees that that’s not considered channel viewing or 22 video, but, you know, it does have the output stage on 23 but -- 24 MR. DOMMU: And I think that’s certainly a 25 very good comment and one we will keep in consideration 26 as we’re looking at the NOPR to ensure that that 27 wouldn’t be considered channel viewing. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 158 MR. BROOKMAN: Noah. 1 MR. HOROWITZ: Noah, NRDC. I’d support 2 Gary’s proposal as well, and one thing that we didn’t 3 mention here that is in CEA test procedure and in the 4 Federal Register is when you press the power button, 5 you can only hold it one or two seconds -- I forgot 6 what it said. We think that’s extremely important 7 because there are some implementations if you do 8 something heroic like hold it 15 seconds, or do some 9 sort of Morse code, it will go into a much lower power 10 state, but users would never really do that. So we 11 want it to be a routine, and that’s less than one or 12 two seconds. Thank you. 13 MS. THAKKAR: That’s right, and the DOE test 14 procedure specifies what’s in CEA, which is less than 15 one second. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 17 comments? Robert. 18 MR. TURNER: Should we specify what’s being 19 viewed before you’re going to sleep? If we think it’s 20 important to differentiate between SD and HD viewing 21 for recording purposes and the mode it’s in before 22 sleep may also be important depending on power saved. 23 MR. DOMMU: Are you suggesting that we have 24 more specificity on what is being -- the requirement to 25 operate the set-top box in on mode for at least five 26 minutes? 27 MR. TURNER: Yeah, if you think it’s 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 159 important to differentiate between SD and HD, there are 1 products that that would make some difference, some 2 don’t. Then you need to define what you’re -- which 3 mode you’re going from. 4 MR. DOMMU: Okay. 5 MR. TURNER: So that would depend on what 6 decoder is still running. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Noah. Did you have something? 8 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Oh, I thought you said 9 Noah. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: I did. 11 MR. A. GOLDBERG: At least there’s one person 12 who gets us confused, huh. I sort of alluded to this 13 or maybe went into some detail earlier, we have a 14 question here on manual sleep and we’ll have a question 15 in a few minutes about APD sleep, and I just wanted to 16 reiterate the third mode, sort of scheduled sleep, and 17 I expect that we’ll have some specific recommendation 18 on what duty cycles should be and how to deal with 19 that. But so you know, it’s coming, and I’m happy to 20 talk about it if it’s appropriate. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: We’ll see as we go on. 22 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. So the second test in 23 sleep mode is the APD test. Again, for this test, it 24 should only be performed if the set-top box has APD 25 capability. To perform the test, the set-top box 26 should be operated in the multi-stream configuration 27 for at least five minutes if it is capable of multi- 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 160 streaming, or it should be operated in the on-Watch TV 1 configuration. The power button on the remote should 2 be pressed for less than one second, only for any 3 locally connected clients to place the clients in sleep 4 mode. 5 Content should be streamed to only one 6 connected display device. If more than one display 7 device is connected, the power button on the remote for 8 the additional displays should be pressed to turn them 9 off. Once content has been streamed to only one 10 display device, the set-top box remote control should 11 not be used or moved. Operate the set-top box until it 12 enters sleep mode or until four hours elapse, whichever 13 occurs first. If the set-top box does not enter sleep 14 mode at the end of four hours, then it is not 15 considered to support APD and p-sleep APD, which is the 16 power consumption in APD should be set equal to P17 watch. 18 If the set-top box does, in fact, enter sleep 19 mode within four hours, then record the average power 20 consumption over the test duration of four to eight 21 hours. 22 Again, DOE’s proposed test procedure for 23 power consumption in APD has been adopted from CEA’s 24 power mode transition on to APD transition test. There 25 are some differences. Similar to the manual sleep 26 test, DOE is proposing a five minute duration to 27 operate the set-top box in on mode. DOE’s proposed 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 161 test explicitly states that the power button should be 1 pressed to place all connected clients in sleep mode, 2 which is not specified in the CEA standard. DOE is 3 setting a maximum four hour time limit within which the 4 set-top box must transition from on to sleep mode via 5 APD. The draft CEA standard does not specify a maximum 6 time limit, but instead measures the time it takes to 7 transition to sleep mode via APD. And finally, again, 8 DOE is proposing to set p-sleep APD equal to p-watch, 9 which is not specified in the CEA standard. 10 So at this time, DOE requests comment on the 11 proposed APD test, in particular, DOE request comment 12 on the time required to transition to sleep mode from 13 on mode, and whether the proposed time of four hours 14 should be set as default, or be adjusted during 15 testing. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Noah. 17 MR. HOROWITZ: This builds off the comment 18 Gregg made earlier. The way APD is currently written 19 is if the user is done watching TV and forgets to turn 20 off the remote control for the set-top box, does it 21 automatically power down after some time period, here 22 proposed to be four hours? We agree with that. 23 There’s another important scenario, though. The user 24 says at ten o’clock, I want you to record the news and 25 at 11 o’clock it’s over. We want to make sure that at 26 11:05 or whatever, that box also automatically powers 27 down and we don’t have any way of determining that, so 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 162 we think there should be an additional test for the 1 time to go back to sleep, and that should be either 2 just simply recorded or you have some minimum value 3 like you have the time you get to transition to on. 4 And similarly, if there’s some major service 5 provider wake event, again we want it to go back to 6 sleep. I don’t know if we need a test method for that, 7 but we want to make sure that that’s in there and 8 depending on whether it happens quickly or not at all, 9 that should impact the total annual energy consumption. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam. 11 MR. A. GOLDBERG: So the NOPR says something 12 like allow the STB to operate until STB enters sleep 13 mode, or until four hours are elapsed. So -- which 14 maybe begs the question of how do you know it’s in 15 sleep mode? 16 MS. THAKKAR: This would be again similar to 17 the manual sleep test where no channel viewing is 18 supported by the set-top box. 19 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Well, wait a minute. We’ve 20 powered down the boxes and then we hang around watching 21 the meter for four hours, right? At some point, if it 22 supports sleep, at some point something’s going to 23 happen, but we don’t know what that is. It’s up to the 24 manufacturer -- apparently it’s up to whoever’s running 25 the test to determine when it’s entered sleep mode. 26 And then maybe an initial complication is, what if it’s 27 got two steps? It’s one way of saying, okay, it’s 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 163 gotten into sleep mode as you’re watching the power, at 1 some point the power drops, right? Or if the power -- 2 what if after two hours the power drops, and after an 3 hour the power drops more. Which is sleep mode? 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 5 MR. LANGILLE: Yeah, I was just going to 6 comment, I think the test actually calls that you 7 actually -- you don’t power anything off, you basically 8 leave everything running. So you’re going to see video 9 on the connected TV, okay. So -- and I believe the 10 indication of where it enters sleep mode, now that 11 doesn’t mean what level of sleep mode, but the fact 12 that it enters sleep mode is that all of a sudden that 13 video goes away or the screensaver comes up or, you 14 know, it transitions. And that’s the only measurement. 15 The issue about the multiple levels, theoretically, 16 that would be captured when you actually make the sleep 17 mode measurement as opposed to -- this is just trying 18 to test the time, so to speak. I think. 19 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Well, whichever. I mean 20 we were talking about auto or manual -- you start 21 looking -- you have a condition based on it has entered 22 sleep mode, and I’m not sure how you -- I’m not sure -- 23 I mean, if the meaning of that is after you push the 24 power button and then it stops showing you video, is 25 that what’s meant by that? 26 MS. THAKKAR: So in the manual sleep test we 27 do specify that it enters sleep mode when it does not 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 164 show any channels. But if it’s not here in the APD 1 test, maybe that’s something that we need to clarify. 2 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Okay. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Noah. 4 MR. HOROWITZ: Quickly, isn’t what we’re 5 really trying to do after four hours and five minutes, 6 say, you’re measuring the power, and that should then 7 be informed the total annual energy consumption test. 8 MS. THAKKAR: Right, so -- 9 MR. HOROWITZ: That way we don’t have to 10 define all these different modes and submodes and what 11 does it mean to be asleep. It’s after four hours, is 12 your power whatever it is, and hopefully it’s lower 13 than what it was when on, and if it isn’t, then you get 14 dinged in the energy equation. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert. 16 MR. TURNER: In the sort of European17 Australian approach we’ve gone a step further than this 18 and said, APD at four hours you get a credit. If you 19 set, as a manufacturer, a shorter APD time then you get 20 an extra credit because it’s obviously in a sleep mode 21 for a longer time. 22 MS. THAKKAR: So we do discuss that in the 23 NOPR and Allen will cover that as the presentation 24

moves on. 25 Okay. At this time, if there are any more 26 remarks on the sleep mode test procedure before we 27 proceed to the off mode test? Okay. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 165 So the next section is the off mode test. 1 DOE recognizes that most set-top boxes cannot be turned 2 off, but is proposing this test because it is required 3 under EPCA. Again, the test must be performed only if 4 the set-top box is capable of being placed in off mode, 5 otherwise the test should be skipped. 6 If the set-top box is capable of being placed 7 in off mode, then place it in off mode and wait until 8 it enters the mode. Once in off mode, record the 9 average power consumption for two minutes. 10 At this time, DOE requests comment on the 11 proposed off mode test. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 13 MR. LANGILLE: It seems fine. It seems 14 reasonable. 15 MR. N. GOLDBERG: I just have one question. 16 This is Neal Goldberg from NCTA. You say if it’s 17 required by -- it is required by the statute. That, of 18 course would be required by the statute if the set-top 19 box is a covered product. Right? 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeremy. 21 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, I mean, for a test 22 procedure we’re required to propose tests in on, 23 standby, and off. 24 MS. THAKKAR: Okay, so the last topic in the 25 section is the test to measure the transition time from 26 sleep to on mode. So this test is optional, and should 27 be performed to determine if the set-top box is capable 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 166 of supporting sleep mode as defined by DOE’s proposed 1 definition, which requires that the set-top box should 2 be capable of transitioning from sleep to on mode 3 within 30 seconds. 4 So this test is performed twice, once for the 5 manual sleep test and once for the APD test. To 6 perform this test, place the set-top box in sleep mode 7 according to the steps specified for the manual sleep 8 test when testing for the manual sleep transition time, 9 and according to the APD test when testing for the 10 transition time for the APD test. For both the tests, 11 wait until the set-top box power consumption reaches P12 sleep, which is between P-sleep and P-sleep plus 0.5 13

watts. 14 After the power consumption reaches the 15 desired value, remain in sleep mode for at least five 16 minutes, then press the power button on the remote or 17 front panel of the set-top box. Once powered, begin 18 the elapsed time measurement and stop the measurement 19 when the set-top box enters on mode. Record this time 20 duration as T-sleep to on. The set-top box is 21 considered to enter on mode when it supports channel 22 viewing on the connected display device. 23 This test is adopted from CEA’s power mode 24 transition, sleep to on transition test. Again there 25 are some differences. First, DOE is proposing two 26 methods to enter sleep mode for the two sleep mode 27 tests proposed today. Second, DOE is proposing a 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 167standard period of five minutes during which the set1 top box remains in sleep mode. The CEA standard does 2 not specify this requirement and states that the entity 3 specifying the use of this method should provide the 4 time duration. 5 At this time, DOE requests comment on the 6 proposed sleep to on mode transition time tests. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Gregg. 8 MR. HARDY: This is Gregg. So my 9 understanding of the test procedure is that in order to 10 run the sleep test, you’ve got to -- assuming you’re a 11 manufacturer running the test -- you’ve got to sort of 12 commit that your box at any point in time during that 13 sleep mode would have less than or equal to a 30 second 14 wake time. And then there’s this test which is 15 optional, which is - sort of lays out a guideline for 16 if you want to test, if you want to run a test to 17 check, this would check at least within the first five 18 minutes if your box has a 30 second wake time. 19 MS. THAKKAR: It wouldn’t check within the 20 first five minutes, it would check it only after the 21 power consumption reaches the power consumption you got 22 for the sleep mode test. 23 MR. HARDY: That’s fair enough, but it’s a 24 limited window, right? So if you pass this test, that 25 doesn’t necessarily mean that your box remains within 26 30 seconds of waking throughout the whole sleep period. 27 So if a manufacturer wanted -- 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 168 MR. A. GOLDBERG: I see where you’re going. 1 MR. HARDY: No, I’m just saying if a 2 manufacturer wanted to be sure that their box 3 maintained that, because maybe they have three 4 different levels of sleep, right -- I mean broadcoms, 5 new silicon, with all these different sleep levels -- 6 MR. A. GOLDBERG: ... to wake up after five 7 minutes, right. 8 MR. HARDY: So if a manufacturer wanted to 9 make sure, they might have to run this test several 10 times throughout the four or eight hour sleep period to 11 make sure that it stays in that state. That’s my only 12

comment. 13 MR. A. GOLDBERG: So, Gregg, you’re concerned 14 about a game where someone might have ten minutes after 15 you push the power button, ten minutes after it goes 16 into sleep it would come right back up, and after ten 17 minutes, it’s going to consume much less power and take 18 much longer to come out, right? 19 MR. HARDY: Right. 20 MR. A. GOLDBERG: But you’re waiting -- step 21 two, wait until power consumption reaches P-sleep or P22 sleep plus half a watt, there’s no advantage to after 23 ten minutes decreasing the power consumption because 24 your TEC calculation is going to use P-sleep. 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary, go ahead. 26 MR. LANGILLE: Yeah, Adam, I think you’re 27 right. I think that’ll cover it, I mean so you can’t 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 169 game it. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Restate it Gary. I didn’t 2 follow it. 3 MR. LANGILLE: I got it. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Restate it, Gary. 5 MR. LANGILLE: The point is that since you 6 have to -- the time is, for the recovery is, you have 7 to reach P-sleep, which means whatever you measured 8 that goes into the duty cycle equation has to match 9 what you can recover from in 30 seconds. 10 MR. HARDY: So in other words -- 11 MR. LANGILLE: There’s no way to get around 12 that because you’re not measuring -- you’re not like 13 waiting five minutes and then measuring it, you have to 14 recover in 30 seconds. You actually have to wait until 15 the power goes down to exactly what it matched when you 16 actually made the four hour test. Or the eight hour 17 test, whatever it was. 18 MR. HARDY: So if you envision a scenario 19 where you’ve spent the first ten minutes at light sleep 20 and then thought, well, I’ll just go way in to deep 21 sleep with a five minute wake time. Then when you run 22 this check, you would never get to P-sleep. 23 MR. LANGILLE: Right. 24 MR. HARDY: Right. That’s a good point. I 25 appreciate that. And in actuality, you know, when you 26 design something like that you usually, you actually do 27 want, for instance, a button on the remote -- there’s 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 170 so many accidental, you know, everyone here -- you roll 1 over and you hit the remote button, you shut the TV 2 off, right, so even TVs normally don’t drop until their 3 normal sleep mode for a while, so they have really fast 4 recovery if people accidentally hit a button or 5 something, so it actually is pretty normal just to sort 6 of drop just a little bit and then wait. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 8 MS. THAKKAR: We’re scheduled to take a break 9 at this time, but -- 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, let’s take a break. And 11 looking at the content that we have, I think we’ll be 12 out of here by four. So good progress, I really 13 appreciate you all for the clarity that you’re bringing 14 to these answers. We’ll take a break and we’ll resume 15 at three. 16 (Whereupon, the meeting was recessed for a 17 brief period.) 18 (First parts of Mr. Tsao’s presentation was 19 not recorded.) 20

21

22 **Calculation of Annual Energy Consumption Metric** 23 (continued) 24 MR. TURNER: The thing that sort of stops you 25 taking a very short time is service providers won’t do 26 it because they don’t want the service calls of 27Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 171 somebody ringing up saying, I messed up my box doing 1 this. So there will be a sort of market force to keep 2 you sensible. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments here? 4 Yes, Gary. 5 MR. LANGILLE: I would just comment that we 6 love credits. Just if, as I said, we don’t include 7 annual energy consumption, I’m not sure where a credit 8 may or may not apply. I can report that in our set-top 9 boxes we recently did a software update where we now 10 actually set the -- it’s sort of an intelligent time 11 out where it’s actually set for two hours, but actually 12 looks at the kind of channels being watched, and it 13 looks up the program guide to see, you know, so if 14 you’re watching football it doesn’t shut it off in the 15 middle of the big play, which has happened to me. You 16 know, as if you had a fixed four hours, so it will 17 either shut off in two -- it always attempts to shut 18 off in two, but it checks to see if there’s an active 19 program going and will add an hour up to four, and then 20 after four, you know, -- and that’s actually settable. 21 But it shows the type thing, I think, Robert’s thing 22 that there are things you can do that can reduce 23

energy. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on scaling 25

APD? 26 MR. DOMMU: I have one more question -- 27 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Jeremy. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 172 MR. DOMMU: I have one more question that I 1 want to bring up to the floor before we move on, and 2 actually this is something that I got e-mailed from the 3 Federal Trade Commission, that they were hoping that 4 they could get some feedback on this question during 5 our meeting, and that is, if DOE were to finalize this 6 test procedure, the FTC would be required 18 months 7 after the issuance of the test procedure to direct -- 8 to prescribe labeling for set-top boxes. However, they 9 do not have to require labeling if it’s determined that 10 labeling is not technically or economically feasible or 11 not likely to assist consumers in making purchasing 12 decisions. 13 MS. SANFORD: Can you read that again? 14 MR. DOMMU: The FTC is required to prescribe 15 labeling for set-top boxes 18 months after the issuance 16 of a DOE test procedure. However, FTC does not have to 17 require labeling if it determines labeling is (1) not 18 technically or economically feasible, or (2) not likely 19 to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. 20 So the question that I was asked to bring up 21 here was is there any feedback on whether or not the 22 FTC should move forward with looking at labeling for 23 set-top boxes? 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary first. 25 MR. LANGILLE: I just ask that are you 26 referring to the energy guide label, the yellow? 27

MR. DOMMU: Yes. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 173 MR. LANGILLE: Okay. My only comment would 1 be that -- I recall some discussion on this issue, I 2 don’t know if they already tried to label set-top boxes 3 or not, did they? But I think the biggest issue that 4 came up previously was the fact that a very, very large 5 percentage of set-top boxes are installed by service 6 technicians who unpack them and all that, and it’s not 7 -- very few are in a retail location where a customer 8 actually would see the yellow label and compare one 9 against the other. So it wasn’t deemed as effective. 10 In fact, we think what will be more effective, and it’s 11 part of the voluntary agreement, is that everyone 12 participating in the voluntary agreement is planning to 13 put up energy usage information for all set-top boxes 14 sold, I believe, by the end of 2014, once we get 15 through this first -- so beginning of 2014 -- that all 16 service providers will be able to go to the website and 17 look at any set-top box and see the energy usage for 18 that device. We think that’s actually more visible, 19 and that would allow customers to look at it ahead of 20 time by the way. So if they say, hey, I think a lower 21 DISH system, you know, how much is one of these suckers 22 going to cost me in energy. They’ll be able to 23 actually look before they buy it. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert. 25 MR. TURNER: I think this is a very strange 26 market. People do not buy set-top boxes. You buy a 27 service. I want to watch these programs. I need that 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 174 platform to watch them, so the consumer is not 1 particularly going on and saying I’ll have cable box 2 based on energy. It’s on the basket of programs being 3 offered. So giving people labels on products is not 4 going to have any value, because it’s not going to 5 change purchasing decisions. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Paul, do you want in? 7 No? Jennifer. 8 MS. AMANN: I just wanted to add one point to 9 Gary’s point. So, the FTC has recently, in December, 10 promulgated new rules on labeling requirements for on 11 line that applies to manufacturers and retailers to 12 display the energy guide label. So that’s been the 13 case for TV since the TV label went into effect, but 14 it’s now for all products covered by the energy -- the 15 appliance labeling program. So in fact, consumers 16 would have an opportunity to go on in advance as 17 they’re researching the different technologies and 18 deciding whether they’re going to go with cable, or 19 Dish, or DirecTV, or whatever, and compare the energy 20 guide labels for the different products. So, just to 21 clarify that that is now an option or a requirement, 22 actually. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Final 24 comments on this, on this request from Jeremy? Let’s 25

move on. 26 **Estimated Burden to Small Businesses** 27 MR. TSAO: So the last section is the 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 175 estimated burden to small businesses. So DOE estimated 1 the impact of this rulemaking that it would have on 2 small business manufacturers of set-top boxes, and DOE 3 has identified at least five small businesses as 4 follows using the North American Industry 5 Classification System, or NAICS codes. The table here 6 shows the different codes, what the criteria are for 7 what is considered a small business, and these are the 8 breakdown of the five that DOE identified. 9 In order to estimate burden, DOE estimated 10 that each of the small business manufacturers typically 11 manufactured four basic models, and that the cost for 12 testing four basic models was about $10,000 for initial 13 setup of capital equipment and $7400 for labor 14 associated with testing those four models. And based 15 on the revenue of those small businesses, the total 16 testing cost for a year amount to a pretty small 17 percentage, less than 0.1 percent of the average 18 revenue for those small businesses. So at this time 19 DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed rule 20 doesn’t pose a significant burden to small businesses. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam. 22 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Sorry, maybe I should keep 23 quiet in some of these matters, but can you go back one 24 slide? What you see is that there is a manufacturer -- 25 sorry, so the -- so there’s four companies that make 26 equipment -- they’re small businesses with less than 27 750 employees, is that right? 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 176 MR. TSAO: Yeah. 1 MR. A. GOLDBERG: And each of -- the next 2 slide -- each of them you estimate makes four models? 3 MR. TSAO: Yes, that was our estimate. 4 MR. A. GOLDBERG: It’s hard to imagine that 5 many, but okay. 6 MR. TSAO: On some of these, they might be 7 conservative estimates if it wasn’t clear exactly. 8 MS. SANFORD: Can I ask a quick question 9 about -- 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Jennifer. 11 MS. SANFORD: -- the definition, 12 “manufacturer” here? Earlier in the NOPR you had set 13 manufacturer -- 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Is your microphone on? 15 MS. SANFORD: Sorry? 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Is your microphone on? 17 MS. SANFORD: Yes, it is. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 19 MS. SANFORD: Also included importers, I 20 notice. So are importers small businesses -- would 21 they be considered manufacturers of set-top boxes as 22 well? 23 MR. TSAO: Yeah, I believe so. 24 MS. SANFORD: So you’re saying there are five 25 small businesses, including importers.\ 26 MR. TSAO: Yes. I mean that’s -- that’s what 27 DOE has identified in this analysis. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 177 MS. SANFORD: Okay. That’s surprising to me, 1 but okay. Thank you. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: So if you have additional 3 data, the Department would really welcome that. Yes, 4 Gregg. 5 MR. N. GOLDBERG: I have a question. I’m 6

sorry. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Neal, follow on then, please. 8 MR. N. GOLDBERG: Just a quick question. 9 When we say manufacturers, we mean manufacturers as 10 defined in the earlier part of this presentation. 11 MR. TSAO: That’s right. 12 MR. N. GOLDBERG: So even though we might 13 have an effect on say a small cable operator, at least 14 an indirect effect, we wouldn’t be covered -- they 15 would not be included in this impact, is that correct? 16 MR. TSAO: That's correct. 17 MR. N. GOLDBERG: Thank you. 18 MR. TURNER: What happens if the cable 19 operator has different software to a big cable 20 operator, so his product costs him a different amount 21 of energy. Does he become a manufacturer then? 22 MR. TSAO: I would say the definition of the 23 manufacturer as we discussed earlier is irrelevant to 24 the size of whether it’s a large manufacturer or a 25 small manufacturer. If somebody -- there’s an entity 26 that meets the definition of manufacturer as we’ve 27 previously provided, then it would be covered by this 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 178 test procedure, and if they were considered a small 1 business manufacturer, then this information would 2 apply. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Gregg. 4 MR. HARDY: To continue that thought. I 5 think there’s some ambiguity about the current 6 definition of manufacturer. It may not matter for a 7 test procedure, but it may matter for other reasons. 8 The big question is can service providers be considered 9 manufacturers? And I don’t know if we need to address 10 that here, but it may become important at some point in 11 time, and it may be important how we define it in the 12 test procedure for other reasons besides the test 13 procedure. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Adam. 15 MR. A. GOLDBERG: So maybe this brings up the 16 sort of base model discussion we had earlier. I mean 17 if me and my two kids in our back room, three 18 employees, less than $15 million dollars, so I design a 19 single set-top box and we manage to sell it to Comcast, 20 Time Warner, Echostar, and DirecTV. Each of them has a 21 version of software in the field and a version of 22 software being tested, and I have one piece of 23 hardware, but I think it’s eight base models, right, 24 and this calculation is based on four. But I mean I 25 think you might need to multiply that by the number of 26 software versions, because I think the base model 27 description, discussion as I thought it turned out, 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 179 yielded every software version difference yielded a 1 different model. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Gregg. 3 MR. HARDY: In your -- in this definition of 4 manufacturing that I think we’re talking about, I don’t 5 think that you as a single person in your garage shop 6 would be considered a manufacturer. I think those 7 people who did the final integration would be 8 considered the manufacturer. 9 MS. SANFORD: Can I jump in here, sorry. 10 This is Jen with Cisco. In the manufacturer of set-top 11 box, if we go back to slide 26, so it’s EPCA defines 12 the term manufacturer as to manufacture, produce, 13 assemble, or import. So any person that manufactures a 14 device that meets the proposed definition of set-top 15 box would be considered a manufacturer under DOE’s 16 regulations. 17 MR. A. GOLDBERG: And DOE amended that to add 18 the software component. So if you view that as the 19 final software, then the garage shop isn’t putting on 20 the final software. 21 MR. HARDY: Wait. What? The NOPR -- 22 MR. A. GOLDBERG: Excuse me, so -- something 23 doesn’t make sense here. So me and my kids, we design 24 a box and we have TPV assemble it in Taiwan, and we 25 import it, right. So we’re the -- we didn’t put the 26 chips on the board, but we designed it and we imported 27 it. And we sell it to a handful of different 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 180 operators, each of which has a handful of different 1 software versions. That’s M times N different models. 2 MR. HARDY: My point is there’s ambiguity 3 here. Either the person that makes the box that’s 4 capable of being the final product is the manufacturer, 5 because that’s what we all tend to call them today, or 6 the person who puts the final software on that box is 7 the manufacturer. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Jennifer, you want to come in 9 here? 10 MS. SANFORD: Well, I was going to say based 11 on our conversation earlier, my take away was that you 12 would be responsible for that box as it was sent to 13 your customers, whether it was the same version 14 supplied to all your customers or you tweaked it for 15 each one, and then they would be responsible for it 16 after they had put their software on it. So, it could 17 be that you have one base model of four base models, 18 and then each of your clients would have a model. 19 PARTICIPANT: So that would be interpreting 20 manufacturer as putting different software version on 21 the box. 22 MR. N. GOLDBERG: Could I ask for a 23 clarification. This is Neal Goldberg, no relation to 24 Adam. Keeping on the question I had before, if all of 25 this is correct, then there could be a small cable 26 operator who downloads software to a device made in 27 Adam’s garage, who wouldn’t be picked up by this small 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 181 business impact. I assume this is impact on small 1 businesses, it doesn’t say small business 2 manufacturers, right? 3 MS. SANFORD: But we’re saying the definition 4 ... 5 MR. N. GOLDBERG: No, I understand that and I 6

-- 7 (overspeak) 8 PARTICIPANT: I think we agree with each 9 other, that it’s underestimated by entity and software 10 versions and everything else. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeremy. 12 MR. DOMMU: No, I mean, I would just say that 13 this was our initial small business impact analysis, 14 where we’re trying to figure out -- this is a proposed 15 regulation to establish a test procedure for set-top 16 boxes. And we’re analyzing here what the impact of 17 that regulation would be on an entity that meets the 18 definition of a small business by the North America 19 Industry Classification System. So to the extent that 20 there are additional small businesses that you have 21 identified, we would encourage you to submit that 22 information to us so that we could update our analysis. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: All right. 24 MR. TSAO: Follow on with a quick comment. 25 So for -- when you’re talking about cable operators, I 26 think I agree, I think there may be some ambiguity as 27 to what constitutes a manufacturer. If the cable 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 182 operator receives a box, doesn’t change it with any 1 software or anything, and redeploys it, then I don’t 2 think that there’s disagreement that that could be 3 considered a manufacturer in any way. I don’t think 4 there’s any ambiguity there. The question is are there 5 small cable operators that do add software layers on 6 top of that that would be considered as a manufacturer, 7 then this seems ambiguous, right, and if you could 8 provide those companies or the numbers or information 9 related to them, then that would be useful. 10 MS. PINTO: This is Francine. I think given 11 all the -- this is Francine. Given all the comments 12 that have just been discussed, we’re just going to have 13 to come back with answers in our final rule later on. 14 Please feel free to give us comments on your position 15 on the issues that have just been discussed about 16 manufacturer. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Robert. 18 MR. TURNER: Again, it may not be that small 19 manufacturers or small service providers put new 20 software on the box, because they’re not big enough to 21 -- they don’t know how to package software, but two 22 service providers may take an identical box with 23 identical software and preconfigure it in different 24 ways so that one party’s box is APD enabled and one 25 doesn’t. It becomes a different product at that point, 26 and that’s in the control of the service provider. 27 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Anything else, Allen? 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 183 MS. KAPLAN: I have one comment. This is 1 Katherine from EnergyStar. And, you know, we’ve 2 encountered this very issue in our program and had to 3 put out a clarification because we were holding 4 manufacturers responsible for certifying that a product 5 met requirements and we heard from some test labs or 6 certification bodies that they didn’t have the final 7 software yet. The box went from the manufacturer to 8 the test lab without the final software provisioned 9 yet, but that got loaded when the box was deployed in 10 someone’s home. 11 So, in any case, I think this is kind of a 12 real question and what we ultimately did, which may 13 very well not work for a federal standard, or even for 14 the purposes of a test procedure, is we said our 15 service provider partners had to ensure that the box 16 continued to meet the EnergyStar requirements once 17 deployed. And, you know, the box is verified and then 18 they’re held responsible. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Final 20 slide. As we promised this morning first thing, now is 21 an opportunity for anybody that wants to, to make a 22 closing statement to feature any other issues that 23 haven’t been covered sufficiently. No additional 24 comments at this time. Okay. 25 Then, back to Jeremy for closing remarks. 26 27 **Closing Remarks** 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 184 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. There’s a couple more 1 slides. I’ll just go through them quickly. It’s just 2 the closing information. 3 Okay. So this slide right here just -- 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Excuse me, Jeremy, I dropped 5 somebody out of the queue. James reminds me that Roger 6 Goodner -- Roger, I apologize, I’ve had your name 7 sitting here in front of me for five minutes now. 8 Please speak. 9 MR. GOODNER: Thank you. I just want to 10 comment on the last bit of the analysis. The analysis 11 that I see is done at $41.08 per hour, which might be a 12 reasonable rate for an engineer running testing. 13 However, that does not include the overhead of a 14 company, nor does it reflect what would be a standard 15 charge rate for an external lab making any 16 measurements, which is probably more likely for a small 17 company to have to do, or a small business. And those 18 rates we’re finding to be more in the order of $150 to 19 $200 an hour, depending on what they have to do. If 20 you take the $150 and you do your analysis, it’s no 21 longer $7400, but it’s $27,000, which represents a 22 significant percentage of the profit line for a small 23 business. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Roger, thank you. And 25 I hope, Roger, you’ll put all those comments in writing 26 and send them in. 27 MR. GOODNER: I will. Thank you. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 185 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Jeremy, 1 back to you. 2 MR. DOMMU: Okay. So again, all this 3 information here is about how to submit written 4 comments. It is in the Federal Register notice, it is 5 on the Department of Energy set-top box rulemaking 6 website, and it’s here on this slide of how to go about 7 the process to either e-mail, hand deliver, or send in 8 the post comments to the docket, and identifying some 9 of the following information listed here. 10 Again, the written comment deadline, April 8, 11 2013. 12 Here are some URL relevant links. This is 13 the Appliance Standard website link. There’s a 14 specific product webpage on DOE’s website, specifically 15 for set-top boxes and there’s a separate rulemaking 16 page specifically the rulemaking activities related to 17 establishing a test procedure for set-top boxes. And 18 then there’s also the rulemaking docket and that’s on 19 regulations.gov and that docket will contain all 20 supporting documents, all notices, and that’s where all 21 written comments will be posted, so you are able, as 22 comments come in, to go to the docket and you’ll see 23 everyone else’s written comments that are submitted, 24 and there’s the URL for that. 25 Finally here is my contact information. The 26 contact information for Celia Sher, the General Counsel 27 representative for set-top boxes. Francine was here 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 186 today, if you have any further questions. 1 So with that, I thank you all so much for 2 incredibly valuable insight that you provided during 3 today’s meeting. We look forward to your written 4 comments and continuing to work with all of you as we 5 move forward in these rulemaking procedures. So thank 6 you so much, we really appreciate it. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Please fill out the evaluation 8 form which is a part of your packet and safe travels 9

everyone. 10 (Whereupon, at approximately 4:00 p.m., the 11 meeting in the above captioned matter was adjourned.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the attached proceedings before:

**UNITED STATES OF AMERICA**

**DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY**

In the Matter of:

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING PUBLIC MEETING ON**Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 187 **TEST PROCEDURE FOR SET-TOP BOXES** Were held as herein appears and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law Judge

or the Agency. Further, I am neither counsel for or related to any party to the above proceedings. 

### Wendy Greene Official Reporter Dated: March 6, 2013