The FCC Asks: What’s In a Gateway?

Despite my aggravation at the FCC’s video stream earlier this week, it’s important to note that the government agency did cover several issues of weight during Thursday’s open meeting. Well, they didn’t so much cover them as agree to investigate them further.

Among the FCC’s agenda items was a proposal to create a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on how to handle the frustration of the CableCARD and create a new gateway that would connect to any type of media box or TV in the home. The idea? Open up cable services so that the TiVos and Boxee boxes of the world can compete. End game: create more choice and better quality for us, the consumers.

The FCC voted yes to the NOI, which means that now lots of folks will weigh in with their opinions and technology recommendations. I have to admit, I’m a little nervous about the gateway concept (temporarily named AllVid), if only because the CableCARD initiative proved so disastrous. But certainly the idea is on the right track. As I said over on the Motorola blog, the devil is in the details.

For in-depth coverage on this week’s meeting, not to mention insightful analysis, check out these stories by Stacey Higginbotham at GigaOM, Jeff Baumgartner at Light Reading Cable, and Karl Bode at Broadband Reports.

10 thoughts on “The FCC Asks: What’s In a Gateway?”

  1. “if only because the CableCARD initiative proved so disastrous”

    Everyone says this, but I think it is false.

    CableCARD allows people to have open DVR’s. The fact that the bulk of consumers prefer closed DVR’s rented to them by their cable companies doesn’t mean that CableCARD failed. In fact, it has allowed for choice.

    I’ve got a TiVo. You’ve got a TiVo. Other folks are building Windows Media Center rigs. None of that would be possible had it not been for the FCC mandating CableCARD.

  2. From a purely technical standpoint, it has been successful. Other than the Tuning Adapter hack needed in SDV markets. But even that works too.

    But from a execution and support standpoint, I can’t call it a success. Also, the tedious and costly licensing process (managed by the cable industry) keeps players like SageTV out of the game. The fact that a small player like Ceton has the investment/cash to keep pushing amazes me – maybe we’re turning a corner. Just in time for a new solution. By the way, where are the retail tru2way DVRs?

    I do agree that most are fine with the cable-co incumbents. Partially because their solutions are competitive, but also partially due to retail CableCARD ignorance and level of difficulty. Classic catch 22.

    For the record, Mari is not a TiVo owner. She doesn’t want a cartoony mascot in her DVR UI. ;)

  3. I’m mostly with Chucky on this one. The CableCard licensing/certification fees are non-trivial, but I don’t think that’s what’s holding things back. The low-end figure of about $100k isn’t that bad at all, though the high-end figure of $500k is getting up there. Either one probably wouldn’t be that bad if there was actually a market out there for third-party STBs.

    Sure, you’ll keep small players, like Sage, out, but again the licensing/certification fees wouldn’t be that bad if they would be able to expand well past their niche market. And, in the grand scheme of things, their impact overall is quite small if they’re only catering to something on the order of tens of thousands of customers.

    Sure, cablecard has its problems. But, given that a company with the name recognition of TiVo has made it through the process and still has major problems holding on to its customers, I just don’t think there’s consumer demand.

  4. “For the record, Mari is not a TiVo owner.”

    That’ll teach me to read the bylines.

    Is Mari funny, or not funny?

    And what is her DVR of usage?

    —–

    “She doesn’t want a cartoony mascot in her DVR UI.”

    How can anyone not love that logo? It’s a deeply sweet logo.

  5. “given that a company with the name recognition of TiVo has made it through the process and still has major problems holding on to its customers, I just don’t think there’s consumer demand.”

    Semantically wrong. There is demonstrated consumer demand for open DVR’s. There just isn’t majority demand. It’s niche demand.

    But allowing for opening at the edges is in the public service for a variety of reasons.

    There would be zero open DVR possibilities now if the government had not done the correct regulatory thing in the past, and there will be zero open DVR possibilities in the future if the FCC doesn’t do the right thing now.

  6. CableCARDs have given enthusiasts a choice which is great, for us it has succeeded. But it has failed the masses, so the FCC wants to figure out what it can do to extend that success to everyone.

  7. “CableCARDs have given enthusiasts a choice which is great, for us it has succeeded. But it has failed the masses”

    I’d argue that this is missing part of the picture.

    The CableCo’s are currently forced to price their DVR’s low enough to make TiVo and the like seem unappealing to the average consumer. But without the CableCARD mandate, the CableCo’s would be the only option for DVR functionality, which would lead the CableCo’s to charge everyone higher prices for their bundled DVR’s.

    Giving “enthusiasts a choice” serves purposes beyond merely the pleasure of enthusiasts. Mandating openness is in the public service in a variety of ways: not only does it hold down costs, but it also helps drive innovation.

    “the FCC wants to figure out what it can do to extend that success to everyone.”

    Go, FCC, go!

    My only point is that there is no contradiction between the FCC doing the right thing and the majority of consumers still opting for the ‘bundled CableCo option’ anyway.

    It just drives me nuts when I read folks like Todd Spangler making the argument that TiVo’s market share means that CableCARD or anything like it should be scrapped.

  8. Sorry, but CableCard is a horrible failure and the FCC should be ashamed of itself for being led around by the nose. The fact that it allowed the cable companies to delay shipping separable security STBs for so long, and then gave them exemptions for their DTAs, and allowed them to ship their cable cards pre-paired already inside the STB is ridiculous. Cable card customers should be paying the same amount for their cable cards as customers with MSO provided DVRs. And the installation process should be identical. If it were the cable cos would have fixed the installation nightmares (which they don’t mind at all) ages ago.

    The fact that cablecard devices can’t access VOD offerings, that they don’t work with SDV, etc. Well, more ammunition–the cable companies should not have been allowed to deploy those services without offering a solution for the open market. Period.

Comments are closed.