CE INDUSTRY PRESSES FCC FOR ‘EXPEDITIOUS APPROVAL’ OF PLUG-AND-PLAY

But others used replies again to press their case that hasty Commission action would be harmful and unnecessary. For example, MPAA said commenters in support of plug-and-play failed to “draw any connection” between agreement’s set of encoding rules and cable compatibility. “Instead, cable and CE commenters attempted to bootstrap an argument that the inclusion of content protection in the DFAST license requires Commission intervention to ensure that content protection is not abused by content providers,” MPAA said. However, it said, cable and CE commenters overlooked fact that cable and CE industries developed DFAST license “not to satisfy the Commission’s mandate on navigation devices, but in order to allow cable MSOs to compete with other distributors for high-value content.”

CEA and CERC contended in their replies that MPAA and others seeking “further constraints on consumers misdirect their attention and complaints to the encoding rules” in plug-and-play agreement. CE groups said MPAA arguments “appear to be based either on a fundamental misunderstanding, or a basic mischaracterization, of what the encoding rules address and provide for.” They said MPAA arguments were based on advocacy of “selectable output control” and “down-resolution” provisions opposed vehemently by CE interests, but that MPAA comments “defend neither.”

Philips chimed in with separate reply of its own dedicated only to blasting MPAA arguments on lack of FCC jurisdiction and agreement’s inadequacy in permitting unprotected analog connections. Philips said such MPAA arguments were “totally inconsistent and irreconcilable with its positions in broadcast flag proceeding.” It said FCC “should reject MPAA’s advocacies du jour and do everything within in its authority now to move the DTV transition forward in a meaningful and proconsumer fashion.”

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said reviewing comments in plug-and-play docket was “a bit like Alice’s trip through the looking glass.” EFF said it was strange reading that movie studios were advocating fewer regulations while CE and cable industries pleaded for “regulations that will bind not just them but all multichannel video programming distributors” (MVPDs). Notwithstanding harmony depicted when cable and CE industries announced agreement in late Dec., “there is not even an appearance of ‘consensus'” in proposed rulemaking, EFF said. It said “everyone who was not directly involved in the negotiation” on plug-and-play, including consumer groups, satellite MPVDs and even one of 5C companies, “is strongly opposed to its terms.”

Meanwhile, NCTA used reply to argue agreement on cable compatibility was in public interest and warranted prompt adoption by FCC. NCTA said objections by MPAA and others should be dismissed, in part because proposed rules were modeled on those already developed for secure digital connectors and agreed to by MPAA studios and others. NCTA said agreement couldn’t discard all copy protection in home and there was no need to change treatment of subscription video-on-demand (SVOD). Assn. also said copy “one generation” shouldn’t permit infinite number of portable copies, that PVR pause features protected PVR functionality without undermining “copy never” protection, and HD carriage wasn’t sufficient to alleviate concerns on encoding rules. “The agreement’s certification requirements are reasonable and accommodate manufacturers’ needs,” NCTA said: “The DFAST license agreement -- a commercial intellectual property license for which FCC adoption is neither sought nor warranted -- will be available when the rest of the regulatory regime is put in place.” NCTA also said agreement didn’t lock in current digital connectors and there were multiple paths to prove security of new connectors, including USB connectors.

NAB and MSTV said over-the-air tuning capability should be included in cable-ready rules, and questioned why neither NCTA nor CEA explained absence of over-the-air tuning capability. NAB and MSTV also asked that FCC refine certain technical rules and ensure that consumers could fully access and use program and tuning (PSIP) information carried in broadcast stream. Assn. of Public TV Stations, PBS and Corp. for Public Bcstg. said they, too, were disappointed pact didn’t include over-the-air ATSC tuner standard nor incorporate full PSIP navigation.

In joint reply, Public Knowledge and Consumers Union urged FCC not to “pick a winner” on copy-protection schemes. They also asked that agency not cut off digital cable-ready products from accessing Internet or using cable modem, or foreclose use of USB, or set encoding rules for each business model. ASCAP, BMI, National Music Publishers’ Assn. and Songwriters Guild of America said jointly that agreement did nothing to protect audio part of audiovisual work subject to protection. They said they feared unlimited copies would be made of soundtracks for unauthorized redistribution over Internet and said that under agreement such solution would, in fact, be illegal.

Comcast, which helped craft agreement, said pact wouldn’t affect transmission technology used to deliver Headend-in-the-Sky (HITS) service to small cable systems. Comcast said FCC should reject NAB’s proposals to impose new requirements on cable operators relating to processing of PSIP data, saying SCTE standards were sufficient. Comcast said it was committed to working with TiVo and other CE manufacturers to design next- generation point of development (POD) that could support many programming streams for PVR recording and other applications. Comcast also said agreement would allow manufacturer of cable modem-enabled device to sign DFAST license, provided device delivers traditional, one-way cable video services and otherwise met DFAST license requirements.