Smart Screen Exclusive

The Federal Communications Commission this week kicked off a proceeding that could have far-reaching implications for how pay-TV and over-the-top content is managed, protected anddelivered. Or it could have very little impact, depending on how the proceeding comes out.

The FCC issued a formal notice Monday seeking comments on a set of proposals developed by the Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee (DSTAC) for how to enable third-party retail set-top boxes to better interoperate with pay-TV services. DSTAC submitted its proposals last week and the FCC posted a 6-page summary of its report on Friday.

The committee was sharply divided, however, between pay-TV providers and equipment makers and one side, and technology companies, consumer electronics makers and consumer advocates on the other, and was unable to agree on a single, consensus recommendation on a software-based system to replace the much-unloved CableCARD

Instead, the committee issued a pair of conflicting and mutually exclusive proposals for content and network security, on which the FCC is now seeking comment and ultimately will have to adjudicate.

DSTAC was created in January by order of Congress as part of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization (STELAR) bill passed in December 2014. The bill directed the FCC to “establish a working group of technical experts representing a wide range of stakeholders, to identify, report, and recommend performance objectives, technical capabilities, and technical standards of a not unduly burdensome, uniform, and technology- and platform-neutral software-based downloadable security system designed to promote the competitive availability of [pay-TV] navigation devices.”

Promoting competitive availability of navigation devices has been the official policy of Congress since 1996, when it ordered the FCC to develop a plan as part of the Telecommunications Act. That effort produced the CableCARD, which was obsolete almost from the moment it was adopted by the FCC. Among other failings, the operator-provided, plug-in card did not support two-way interactive services such as video-on-demand, and was incompatible with satellite and IPTV systems. DVR-maker TiVo was the only CE maker to make extensive use of CableCARD.

For the past several years the FCC has tried but failed to prod the industry to develop a uniform, downloaded security module that would enable any set-top device to connect with and navigate any pay-TV service, regardless of type, by downloading the appropriate conditional access and content security software. Its patience wearing thin, Congress decided last year to give the process a shove.

The “wide range of stakeholders” convened by the FCC, however, proved too wide to reach consensus. From the start, members of the committee disagreed as to the scope of their charter. The pay-TV providers and their allies sought to keep the process focused narrowly on the “technical standards…[for a] downloadable security system,” while the CE makers and their allies wanted the committee to focus more broadly on the goal of “promot[ing] the competitive availability of navigation devices” including security and non-security elements.

The result was a split decision and the dueling proposals.

The operator group is promoting an apps-based approach modeled on mobile and web-apps, in which third-party devices could download operator-provided HTML5 apps providing access to the video content and operator’s UI, with conditional access and content security performed in the cloud. According to the summary report:

The app model allows the applications to connect to the many different parts of each network involved in delivering service and still take advantage of each networks’ efficiencies, which vary based on architectures optimized for their different physical natures …The apps deliver the MVPD service that includes modern features such as interactivity, on-screen caller ID, the ability to navigate, see recent tuning history and pause/resume on different devices in the home, regardless of which device was used. Consumers receive service as advertised and as intended by the service provider, including a user interface designed for interacting with the MVPD’s experience.

Consumers receive automatic service and feature upgrades from the MVPD as service evolves via app updates, without awaiting industry consensus, standards, or rule changes.

The CE makers and their allies argue that approach would turn third-party devices into essentially “dumb terminals” for hosting operator-provided apps and would not allow CE makers to create their own user experiences and interfaces that would integrate pay-TV content with other services such as over-the-top video. They favor an approach that would disaggregate video delivery from other elements of a pay-TV operator’s service, such as the user interface and content entitlement/authentication.

According to the summary:

This system would terminate the MVPD’s content protection system and protect it using a single common format like DTCP-IP or similar link protection. A Digital Rights Management system (DRM), such as PlayReady, or an enhanced link protection system such as DTCP+, would be suitable for Cloud based delivery. Additional service features could be supported by widgets8 to be developed by all MVPDs and delivered through an enhanced Man Machine Interface (MMI).

These could support unique consumer interactions, communication with MVPD network “back office” components, billing, and certain service features. Hyperlinks inside an expanded MMI widget could support targets on the greater Internet to communicate directly with an MVPD web service. Display of widgets on the device must be optional, based on user input…  and user actions.

Operators argue that approach  would turn MVPDs into mere suppliers of programming for use by third parties without responsibilities to content providers or distributors, and could abrogate the terms of their licensing agreements with rights owner that often prohibit providing content to third parties for commercial use.

If adopted, such an approach could require significant changes to how content metadata, rights management and security are managed, at multiple levels of the distribution chain. CE devices would need access to content metadata, for instance, to enable new UIs and navigation tools. Rights management would likely need to be handled in the cloud, rather than through in-house workflows, to enable access to content by devices that are not governed by contractual arrangements with rights owners.

Comments are due by Oct. 8th.