Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

FCC to require All Vid IP video adapters from cable and maybe satellite


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   dvrblogger

dvrblogger

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 562 posts
Joined: Jan 11, 2005

Posted 22 April 2010 - 05:27 PM

FCC's 'AllVid' Gateway Would Require Six IP Video Streams
Regulation Would Apply to All Cable, Satellite and Telco TV Providers
By Todd Spangler -- Multichanne
l News, 4/22/2010 1:32:22 PM

The Federal Communications Commission is looking for feedback on its proposal to require U.S. cable, satellite and telco TV operators to supply all their customers an "AllVid" device or gateway -- capable of delivering as many as six different IP video streams to TVs, DVRs or other equipment in the home -- beginning no later than the end of 2012.

The commission issued the proposal Wednesday in a "notice of inquiry" seeking input. The FCC is hoping to "spur innovation, draw users to broadband, and change how people perceive and use broadband," by mandating a solution that would work across all multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs).

For now, the FCC is seeking comment on the AllVid concept and does not intend to impose rules immediately. However, the agency has suggested it would require all MVPDs to supply all subscribers with the AllVid solution no later than Dec. 31, 2012, and mandate the use of the interface with their operator-leased set-tops and DVRs as well.

The cable industry supports the "all-MVPD" solution, in large part because it would put satellite and telco competitors in the same regulatory boat.

"We applaud the Commission for adopting a Notice of Inquiry that will explore how best to achieve a competitive retail marketplace for devices that can access the video services of all multichannel providers," National Cable & Telecommunications Association president and CEO Kyle McSlarrow said. "We are very pleased that the Notice appears to be consistent with the series of consumer principles governing video devices which we have submitted to the Commission, especially in its recognition that the appropriate solution must involve all multichannel video providers."

The FCC's current CableCard regime, by contrast, applies only to cable operators and Verizon's FiOS TV service, which uses a cable-based video delivery system. The commission said it anticipates that AllVid devices "could over time replace CableCard devices on retail shelves" and is seeking comment on whether the commission should consider eliminating the CableCard rules, and if so, the appropriate date for such a change.

In its notice of inquiry, the commission suggested two possible AllVid equipment configurations: a small "set-back" device, capable of communicating with one navigation device or TV set and providing at least two simultaneous video streams, to allow for picture-in-picture and to let subscribers watch one program while recording a program on another channel; and a whole-home gateway, capable of providing at least six simultaneous video streams within the home.

The entire 28-page NOI is available here: http://hraunfoss.fcc...FCC-10-60A1.pdf.

The FCC further suggested IP and 100-Mbps Ethernet as the communications protocol and physical-layer interface, respectively, for AllVid. However, the commission also seeks comment "on any other physical connectors (for example, Multimedia over Coaxial Cable (‘MoCA')" that could serve as the link between AllVid adapters and retail navigation devices or whether the FCC would need to mandate a physical layer technology at all.

For encryption and authentication, the AllVid equipment could use Digital Transmission Licensing Administrator's Digital Transmission Copy Protection over IP specification (DTCP-IP). The FCC noted that the MPAA and CableLabs have both approved DTCP-IP.

Other functions AllVid may have to perform: a mechanism to communicate the directory of video content available; the ability to facilitate content ordering and billing; and the ability to pass through emergency alert system ("EAS") messages, closed-captioning data and parental-control parameters.

The FCC said the AllVid adapter may not have to transcode the content, as delivered by the MVPD. The commission is seeking input on whether it should specify video-encoding formats, and, if so, on which audio-visual codecs navigation devices should be required to handle.

In addition, the commission wondered whether navigation devices in the AllVid system should include over-the-air ATSC tuners. While FCC rules require unidirectional digital cable devices to include an ATSC tuner, the agency asked whether consumers would expect this equipment to receive over-the-air broadcast service as well as whether the commission has the authority to impose such a requirement.

The FCC also raised questions about the cost for an AllVid adapter and the costs associated with adding compatibility to a TV or third-party DVR.

"We seek data on consumer purchasing behavior regarding home-entertainment equipment," the commission asked in the NOI. "To what extent are consumers willing to pay for additional functionalities in the equipment they purchase? Would the AllVid concept change the economics of consumer preferences?"

Attached Files



...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#2 OFFLINE   matt

matt

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,858 posts
Joined: Jan 11, 2010

Posted 22 April 2010 - 05:32 PM

How does this differ from RVU?
Slimline 5 with SWM-16
Wireless DECA
HR34-700!
R22-200 Leased
Owned H25-700 and H24-700 off and packed for the move.

DIRECTV subscriber since Nov. 2009

#3 OFFLINE   Stuart Sweet

Stuart Sweet

    The Shadow Knows!

  • Super Moderators
  • 36,906 posts
Joined: Jun 18, 2006

Posted 22 April 2010 - 05:37 PM

I think DIRECTV's got this one covered, or at least they will.
Opinions expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of DBSTalk.com, DIRECTV, DISH, The Signal Group, or any other company.

#4 ONLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,407 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 22 April 2010 - 05:44 PM

I'm pretty sure that DECA alone could not meet the requirements.

They mention multiple MoCA segments which doesn't seem practical with DECA.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#5 OFFLINE   Avder

Avder

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,395 posts
Joined: Feb 06, 2010

Posted 22 April 2010 - 06:00 PM

So, what, the FCC is going to mandate a universal standard for set top boxes sometime in the future or something? Wasnt something like this posted a few weeks ago?

#6 OFFLINE   ndole

ndole

    Problem Solver

  • Registered
  • 1,903 posts
Joined: Aug 26, 2009

Posted 22 April 2010 - 06:10 PM

Why is this any of the FCC's business?

A:It's not.
"He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else."

#7 OFFLINE   BattleZone

BattleZone

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 8,969 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2007

Posted 22 April 2010 - 06:28 PM

What the FCC is trying to do is separate the TV client, currently in your set-top box and in most cases proprietary to your provider, and the actual content delivery. The idea is that the content is converted at a "gateway" into industry standard streams, so that you can use any compliant set-top/interface device you like.

For example, a DirecTV whole-home DVR with 6 sat tuners and supporting 6 streaming DNLA-compliant streams would presumably be a compliant gateway. Same with FIOS, Comcast, Dish, or Uverse.

Just like you could, with analog programming, choose a TiVo, UltimateTV, ReplayTV, etc. set top box and thus choose your interface, in this way you could choose to use the client in your TV, your PS/3, your XBox360, your HTPC, your Roku, your PopcornHour, or whatever box you like. The content would be in a standard format so the interface would be separate, allowing consumers multiple choices.

#8 ONLINE   Nick

Nick

    Keep going - don't give up!

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 21,356 posts
  • LocationThe Beautiful Golden Isles of Coastal Georgia
Joined: Apr 23, 2002

Posted 22 April 2010 - 07:12 PM

This topic is of general interest and, due to its scope and importance, needs to be moved to a general discussion area.

.


~ 12 Year Anniversary ~
Charter Gold Club Member
DBSTalk Club ~ 21k Club
Top 10 Poster

.


#9 OFFLINE   Jeremy W

Jeremy W

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,447 posts
Joined: Jun 18, 2006

Posted 22 April 2010 - 07:32 PM

The content would be in a standard format so the interface would be separate, allowing consumers multiple choices.

Exactly. That's why this is different than, and IMO ultimately better than RVU. With RVU, the provider is still maintaining control over the experience by exporting their GUI to the clients. With AllVid, the provider is only providing the content. The GUI is up to the client, which could be the provider's or any other company that wants to make one.

#10 OFFLINE   Movieman

Movieman

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,044 posts
Joined: May 08, 2009

Posted 22 April 2010 - 08:23 PM

So, what, the FCC is going to mandate a universal standard for set top boxes sometime in the future or something? Wasnt something like this posted a few weeks ago?


I think this will probably one of the better FCC decisions and im not a big fan of the FCC.

Why is this any of the FCC's business?

A:It's not.


It is because consumers are constantly complaining about cost vs options. They are basically going to let us have an opportunity to pick who we want and not spend a lot on equipment. Similar to being able to move GSM phones/CDMA phones between carriers. Just a way to give us more options.

What the FCC is trying to do is separate the TV client, currently in your set-top box and in most cases proprietary to your provider, and the actual content delivery. The idea is that the content is converted at a "gateway" into industry standard streams, so that you can use any compliant set-top/interface device you like.

For example, a DirecTV whole-home DVR with 6 sat tuners and supporting 6 streaming DNLA-compliant streams would presumably be a compliant gateway. Same with FIOS, Comcast, Dish, or Uverse.

Just like you could, with analog programming, choose a TiVo, UltimateTV, ReplayTV, etc. set top box and thus choose your interface, in this way you could choose to use the client in your TV, your PS/3, your XBox360, your HTPC, your Roku, your PopcornHour, or whatever box you like. The content would be in a standard format so the interface would be separate, allowing consumers multiple choices.


Yup. Again not a big fan of the FCC but I like their direction on this one. I think there might be a lot of lobbying against this but as it was just posted Directv might have an advantage and maybe even AT&T but I think if they can pull this off we will see prices drop for PayTv services.

#11 OFFLINE   evan_s

evan_s

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,136 posts
Joined: Mar 03, 2008

Posted 23 April 2010 - 12:30 PM

I like the idea. Cable cards were a good first attempt but didn't really do enough to actually make enough of a difference. Basically they are trying to get back to the good old days of analog where you could plug in any box you wanted with what ever features you wanted and get your TV service. Even with cable card that isn't possible because of various things like VOD, SDV, etc. If done will this gateway should allow you all the functionality on what ever device you choose with what ever provider you choose. You might even see good integration of multiple providers.

#12 OFFLINE   Skyboss

Skyboss

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 588 posts
Joined: Jan 22, 2004

Posted 23 April 2010 - 12:32 PM

You might even see good integration of multiple providers.


That right there would be slick.

#13 OFFLINE   tkrandall

tkrandall

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,795 posts
Joined: Oct 03, 2003

Posted 23 April 2010 - 01:00 PM

While it may sound good to have a common standard that allows the consumer to shop around content providers more easily - is there a real potential for a down side such as adverse impact on innovation (or financial incentive for innovation) that having to hold devices to a common standard might impose? Forcing solutions that could end up imposing unintended or unforeseen limitations would be a concern I have.

Moreover, the FCC chair seems to have quite a vision for broadband as THE panacea for society, and the indications as to his commitment to achieve this vision and the level of social engineering the FCC is looking to impose to achieve it... well I find it all a bit unnerving. I guess I am just old school.......

#14 OFFLINE   Tom Servo

Tom Servo

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 950 posts
Joined: Mar 07, 2007

Posted 23 April 2010 - 01:04 PM

I'm wondering how much this magic box is going to cost if it has to decode all these different digital streams. Providers may only use a handful of encoding schemes, but don't they use a lot of different encryption schemes? Seems like that will drive up costs a lot.

It reminds me of the desire people have to be able to take a phone handset across multiple providers, which means having multiple transceivers for a myriad of frequencies. My (unsubsidized) GSM phone was $500 over four years ago. I can only imagine how big, bulky and expensive it'd be if it had integrated CDMA, TDMA, EV-DO, UMTS, iDEN and I dunno what else included.

#15 OFFLINE   bakerfall

bakerfall

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 457 posts
Joined: Aug 23, 2006

Posted 23 April 2010 - 01:12 PM

While it may sound good to have a common standard that allows the consumer to shop around content providers more easily - is there a real potential for a down side such as adverse impact on innovation (or financial incentive for innovation) that having to hold devices to a common standard might impose? Forcing solutions that could end up imposing unintended or unforeseen limitations would be a concern I have.

Moreover, the FCC chair seems to have quite a vision for broadband as THE panacea for society, and the indications as to his commitment to achieve this vision and the level of social engineering the FCC is looking to impose to achieve it... well I find it all a bit unnerving. I guess I am just old school.......


Actually quite the opposite. The box developers (HTPC, tivo, moxi, etc) will be getting a standard stream regardless of the provider. Satellite, Cable, IPTV, it doesn't matter. They get the stream from the Allvid gateway. The provider needs to make their signal compatible so that once the gateway gets it, it can distribute regardless. This will foster much more innovation and competition in the STB marketplace.

I'm not sure how they are going to do it, or what it's going to cost. But at the end of the day this is only a positive for the consumers. No more waiting for a directivo or for the HR2X to get a better GUI, or a Media Center tuner that never comes. You can setup whatever solution you want and keep it with you with any provider.

I think it's an awesome thing and I hope it comes in 2012 and does what it's supposed to.
HR20-700 (w/1 TB eSATA drive), HR24-500 x3, HR22-100, SWM-16, DECA

#16 OFFLINE   dsw2112

dsw2112

    Always Searching

  • Registered
  • 1,936 posts
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Posted 23 April 2010 - 01:13 PM

The Federal Communications Commission is looking for feedback on its proposal to require U.S. cable, satellite and telco TV operators to supply all their customers an "AllVid" device or gateway -- capable of delivering as many as six different IP video streams to TVs, DVRs or other equipment in the home -- beginning no later than the end of 2012.
?"


Interesting idea until you read the above bolded line. What happens if you need more than 6 streams? If this is the same as limiting a customer to 6 active tuners I think this is far too small...
SL3-Slimline to SWM16 - DECA
HR34-700, HR24-500, & HR22-100

#17 OFFLINE   Jeremy W

Jeremy W

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,447 posts
Joined: Jun 18, 2006

Posted 23 April 2010 - 01:18 PM

I'm wondering how much this magic box is going to cost if it has to decode all these different digital streams. Providers may only use a handful of encoding schemes, but don't they use a lot of different encryption schemes? Seems like that will drive up costs a lot.

It reminds me of the desire people have to be able to take a phone handset across multiple providers, which means having multiple transceivers for a myriad of frequencies.

You're getting a little confused here. The "magic box" would be provided by the provider, and would only work with that provider. Just like a normal STB today. The difference is that the "magic box" will output the content in a standard format that can be consumed by many different devices. The "magic boxes" themselves are not meant to be portable between providers.

#18 OFFLINE   evan_s

evan_s

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,136 posts
Joined: Mar 03, 2008

Posted 23 April 2010 - 01:20 PM

I'm wondering how much this magic box is going to cost if it has to decode all these different digital streams. Providers may only use a handful of encoding schemes, but don't they use a lot of different encryption schemes? Seems like that will drive up costs a lot.


I assume the gateway box would be provider specific. The interface that the clients sees need to be standardized but the hardware that provides those can be a proprietary as you want.

#19 OFFLINE   Tom Servo

Tom Servo

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 950 posts
Joined: Mar 07, 2007

Posted 23 April 2010 - 01:37 PM

You're getting a little confused here. The "magic box" would be provided by the provider, and would only work with that provider. Just like a normal STB today. The difference is that the "magic box" will output the content in a standard format that can be consumed by many different devices. The "magic boxes" themselves are not meant to be portable between providers.

Ah, okay I get it now. In that case, I'm all for this. :)

#20 OFFLINE   Beerstalker

Beerstalker

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,991 posts
Joined: Feb 09, 2009

Posted 23 April 2010 - 02:06 PM

Actually, I believe the RVU boxes can be set up to use the GUI that is sent out by the server box, or they can use their own GUI built into the box if that RVU box includes one.

The D* ones shown at CES did not have their own GUI so they used the one pushed to them from the server box (the HMC30).

So theoretically you could rent the HMC30 from D* and then buy RVU boxes from Tivo etc. and use the Tivo interface with D* service.

I have also heard that they are looking at forcing the server boxes to use the same inputs too, so you could buy a Tivo server and use it for D*, E*, or Comcast depending on which access card you put in it. I personally think this would be a big mistake and would either make the server boxes too complicated and expensive, or would stifle innovation by requiring D*, E*, and cable are cooperate and come up with a new standard for sending down the info.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...