How would you like it if, to get on the internet, you had to run an operating system and browser of your ISP’s choice? If that were the case, we’d probably all be running Windows ME and Netscape 4. Would you like it if your ISP could take over your browser, providing you with “important” information and targeted advertising? Of course not. When it comes to the internet, almost everyone realizes that it makes no sense to hand control over the software you use to access a network over to the network operator. Choice, competition, and openness lead to innovation, which leads to superior products and a better experience for everyone. But openness has always been missing from the cable TV network. And if the cable industry gets its way with a new technology called “OCAP,” it’s going to further increase its control over the network. It wants to mandate what software all consumer devices that receive and decode cable signals must run, and it wants control over the look-and-feel of the devices that attach to the cable network.
Openness is good for consumers. Monopolistic practices and vertical control are not. This is the idea animating Net Neutrality, wireless Carterfone, and similar matters— that network operators should have open, not closed networks, and should not seek to parlay their control over communications bottlenecks into control of related areas. Your cable company controls what is probably the best data pipe into your home, the coaxial cable. This gives them the bandwidth to provide television programming, as well as, in many markets, high-speed internet access. They already control the content of your cable programming (and would love to increase their control over internet content, as well). They also control the hardware that you use to access cable programming— nearly all cable subscribers rent their set-top boxes from the cable company. Now, they want to take over your TV.
To comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the cable industry has to make it possible for third parties to create devices that receive and decode cable signals. Television makers, for instance, would like to create TVs that have all the functionality of a cable set-top box built-in. A device called the CableCARD, which was supposed to allow for these kinds of devices, is not compatible with technologies like Video on Demand that require two-way communication between the home and the cable head-end. This incompatibility may put some in the cable industry in violation of the law, since third-party devices must have access to all “video programming.”
To “fix” the situation, CableLabs, the cable industry’s research arm, has submitted a proposal for a technology. Here’s what they propose: the descrambling hardware CableCARD will be replaced by software called DCAS, a piece of back-end software that decodes encrypted cable signals. To even be able to receive DCAS, the cable industry is requiring third-party devices to license and use another kind of software called OCAP, which controls what the users see and interact with on the device itself. One downside for third party manufacturers implementing OCAP is that it takes over their device which all but eliminates a developers ability to new features, let alone a unified interface. Essentially, the cable industry would like to have near-total control over any device that receives cable signals.
All you users of TiVO, MythTV or Windows Media Center, listen up. Imagine if you were using your device as usual, but when you wanted to schedule a new show to record, you could only use the program guide provided by the cable system—limiting you to the functionality and interface of cable’s program guide; gone is the nicer looking and more functional program guide downloaded native on your TiVo. When switching channels, your Myth TV or Media Center’s channel overlay would be covered up by the cable provider’s interface. Any feature that the cable provider deems in competition with a service provided over OCAP on the third-party device, the OCAP interface and functionality takes precedence. In the PC world, it’s the equivalent to an ISP requiring that you use a certain operating system or browser when you are connected to the internet— and reserving for itself the right to take control of your screen.
If CableLabs proposal were adopted, it would give your cable operator near-total control over the look and feel of any device that receives and decodes television programming. The CableLabs proposal would stifle the market for third-party cable devices by reducing an electronics company’s ability to innovate and differentiate its products.
Public Knowledge has been concerned with the marketplace for cable set-top boxes for a while now. Just yesterday we joined with several other public interest organizations to send a letter to Chairman Martin of the FCC. We are asking the FCC to seek comment on a proposal by the Consumer Electronic Association that is much more consumer-friendly than the proposal put forth by CableLabs for the successor to CableCard.
Part of the problem of CableLabs’ proposal is it makes itself, instead of an independent standards-setting body, the entity entirely in the control of what devices can interact with the cable network. It is not surprising that the cable companies want to maintain their control over competition (or the lack thereof) on the cable network— but thankfully Congress already spoke to that issue and said “open up.” Among other things, the CEA proposal would have these kinds of technical underpinnings created by an independent standards-setting body— the same way that things work for the internet and other industries.
The CEA proposal makes more sense than the CableLabs proposal from both a business and a consumer perspective. However, consumers also depend on electronics companies not to add unnecessary technological limitations to their devices which make it difficult or impossible for them to exercise their right to make legal use of the content they have obtained. Because the CEA proposal does not address this issue, we are also asking the FCC to ensure that any successor to CableCard enables a consumer’s legal use rights.
Groups signing the letter (in alphabetical order) are: Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Press, Knowledge Ecology International, Media Access Project, New America Foundation, Public Knowledge and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
The full text of our letter is available here; the original PDF version is here. Our press release on the matter can be read here.
Good Job John! Until the
Good Job John!
Until the “Lawful Uses of Video Content” section, you could have had many of the content providers sign your letter as well. I don’t know if you thought of approaching any of them, but you would have heard that they hate OCAP also. They want something that allows them to create uniform applications for Internet, TV and Mobile without having to go through the lengthy CableLabs approval and testing. Sure the new OCAP boxes will support AJAX and web services, but resource management and look and feel are still issues.
The one missing element that would make the content and consumer communities much happier is a common CPE platform accross technologies. When the FCC established the original separation rules, Satellite was very different and IPTV didn’t exist. Customers need to be able to reuse their $400 STB or $1200 HDTV when they move between technologies. The Disneys and Googles of the world want this even more.
Not so Good Job John! John
Not so Good Job John!
John is to be commended for wading into what is clearly a highly charged, and exceedingly technical area. The results are a bit off the mark, though.
You state: “To even be able to receive DCAS, the cable industry is requiring third-party devices to license and use another kind of software called OCAP, which controls what the users see and interact with on the device itself.”
It’s true DCAS will need OCAP, but this statement is a bit misleading on a couple of accounts. First OCAP exists separate and apart from DCAS — in fact, it exists on set-top boxes from cable operators and in 2-way TV sets (LG, Samsung, and Panasonic all have, or are planning to make, OCAP-enabled sets). And all of these devices work with CableCARDS.
More basically, OCAP is alot more than a device “which controls what the users see”. It’s middleware which allows a host of two-way applications for TV sets in the future. And because it is resident in a two-way TV set, the customer will be able to download the application rather than needing a separate new device to make the application work. Dozens of application providers, unaffiliated with cable, are interested in getting into this application business — the OCAP Developers Conference at the NCTA show was standing room only.
The public policy goal in this area should be to future-proof consumer devices so that, when the next big thing comes along, consumers don’t need another appliance to attach to the set. OCAP aims to accomplish this. I might be wrong — but as you wade into this discussion about our future TVs, why not ask people who bought one-way CableCARD sets and then found out that basic functions like on-screen guides weren’t part of the product: how happy they are with a limited set? Or better yet: why not ask a cable installer how much she enjoys the “control over competition” you cite when the consumer buys one of these sets and spends all day on the phone with the manufacturer trying to get it to work because the glitch is at the manufacturer’s end? These, too, are part of the reality of this debate.
Finally Tomcoseven’s comment about an all-MVPD solution makes a lot of sense. When the 1996 Act passed, cable had around 90% of the MVPD market. Today it’s less than 70%. That means that more than 3 out of ten customers are not included the pro-retail solution that John and I both think makes sense. If a customer wants to switch from DBS to Verizon, all this work will do nothing for them. An all MVPD solution is the only realistic competitive approach — assuming the government’s ability to get technical specifications right in this whole area. Remember, the one-way deal was consensual — imagine a cram-down of technical rules that don’t work in the real world. (Remember the rate rules of 1992-1994 — 1300 pages later, the system collapsed after putting the video programming industy into cardiac arrest).
There are a lot of moving parts here, and this policy issue requires some care with the facts and analogies — and some realistic sense of what government rules do to a fast-changing technology like digital TV.
More basically, OCAP is
The actual letter addresses this. The blog post was admittedly simplified— sorry if you found it misleading. In order to access certain services, you will need to run applications (on top of OCAP) that the cable operator provides. This is the way that OCAP “controls what users see.” Our position is that you shouldn’t need to run any particular application to access video programming.
As discussed in the letter, OCAP or something like it might be a good idea for some of the reasons you mention. A standard environment that would work on a variety of devices would clearly be a boon to developers. But access to video services should not require that a device run a particular application. It should be possible to build a device without OCAP that can still access the full range of video programming.
The public policy goal in
I mostly agree with this. But (1) OCAP isn’t required to ensure this goal, and (2) to a limited extent, future-proofing a device makes it more costly up-front.
Another public policy goal should be to ensure that there is choice in the marketplace. What incentive would a cable company have to improve and refine its OCAP applications, when they’re the only game in town?
The problems with OCAP fit
The problems with OCAP fit into three areas:
1) CableLabs - It should be an open standard (IETF) that protects everyone’s investment in R&D and brand creation. Having the Cable companies own the spec and testing makes the CE community merely contract manufacturers for the Cable companies. It prevents Internet and media companies from being able to leverage their brands and social communities down to the television audience without big Cable’s permission. This is basically a “net neutrality” for TV argument.
2) Technology - OCAP is ancient technology. It is based on the old JavaTV from the mid-90’s, which is incredibly difficult to program and test compared with today’s web-based technologies. This slows down innovation.
3) Multi-platform - The whole idea of “3 screen” applications is to have a common user experience across all screens. Using Apple as an example, consumers clearly see the benefits of multi-platform commonality (iTunes on a PC, iPod, iPhone and AppleTV). To provide these consumer benefits, companies need to leverage their investments across as many platforms as possible.
2 reactions: at least with
2 reactions: at least with OCAP you can download the next big application; without it, the CE device that your letter endorses is frozen in time and space. Forget caller-ID on your screen — you wouldn’t get it.
And second, new OCAP applications would be the lifeblood of cable, just as new programming has been the lifeblood of analog and digital TV. The hundreds of nonvertical programmers that populate cable channels suggest that unaffiliated parties would not only be welcome, they’d be vital.
OCAP is a standard that will
OCAP is a standard that will benefit everyone by providing a common platform for applications to run.
This is NOT a unique and first-time situation. In fact, a similar Java environment (MIDP) is the common platform for most cellular phones and other mobile devices like Blackberrys, and this has led to the formation of the multi-billion dollar mobile app market that benefits the carriers, the CE manufacturers, and the consumers.
OCAP is related to the common platform for the high-definition Blu-ray disc called BD-J (BD-Java), which again provides a way for multiple studios and manufacturers to standardize on a common platform for the benefit of all. In fact, Disney (and Job’s Pixar) are both strong advocates of this platform.
The next-gen OCAP platform is not based on JavaTV, but on the newest Personal Profile, standardizing it with an entire spectrum of devices (inc cellphones).
Finally, I do not understand why HARDWARE manufacturers would want to control the SOFTWARE experience of the users. Besides the fact that most hardware manufacturers have no idea about software, you’ll create a situation where developers cannot write to any standard platform, which limits creativity and diversity of apps. The mobile industry, where there is a clear separation of interests, and where a very successful partnership between manufacturers and carriers and others have been formed, might be a model upon which a successful partnership between Cable companies and manufacturers can be based.
OCAP will be that common glue.
We are not opposed to OCAP
We are not opposed to OCAP per se, and while we largely support the CEA proposal, that is because it is in our judgment superior for consumers, not CE companies.
However, we are opposed to (1) the artificial tying of DCAS and OCAP, and (2) requiring that OCAP be used to access video programming. These two factors serve to limit consumer choice and reduce the kinds of devices that may be brought to market. Cable has also shown a willingness to use licensing and certification requirements as a means to control what competing products and services CE companies can offer.
If OCAP proves to be a benefit to consumers, then it will become a must-have feature on consumer electronics. If it is optional, Cable is not in such a strong bargaining position with regard to the licensing requirements and is less able to control what CE companies may do.
OCAP has definite advantages. However, those advantages do not justify Cable’s anti-competition practices, particularly when alternative means to gain those advantages exist.
Also: The question isn’t whether hardware or software companies should be in charge of software on consumer devices. It’s whether network operators should be.
OCAP is expensive?, it makes
OCAP is expensive?, it makes use of more complex Java-based technology. I always use some internet tv, like stream tv, One thing OCAP capability isn’t likely to prompt: Internet browsing via the TV. Even with cable modems embedded in boxes and set-top gateways in place, Web browsing doesn’t seem like a business, executives said. Cable companies will more likely use the interactive communication capability to improve communications over own networks. All these seem no bad.