Cable-Ready DTV Receivers: CEMA's Proposal for Cable and Terrestrial Compatibility

NAB Statement

Eithernet?

Our proposal sets forth a cable-ready DTV receiver that will:

• tune all cable and terrestrial channels;

• demodulate all cable and terrestrial signals;

• decode all cable and terrestrial video formats;

• decode system information contained in both terrestrial and cable formats;

• handle emergency messaging for both cable and terrestrial signals;

• be equipped with a POD (point of deployment) module;

• Incorporate copy protection.

July 12, 1999

Thank you. I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the consumer electronics industry. I commend Dick Green and the staff of CableLabs for this wonderful event and for the success of CableLabs. The cable industry vision in funding CableLabs is an example of strategic thinking that other industries should emulate.

Before I begin, I would like to say a brief word about Decker Anstrom, who was originally scheduled to be on this panel. I commend Decker on his success in reshaping the perception of the cable industry in Washington. Very few trade association executives can walk out the door knowing that they left their industry in such an improved and strengthened position.

On behalf of our industry, I wish Decker happiness and success in his new job. However, I have one final request: let's all ask Decker to use his new power to turn down the thermostat on the East Coast. Decker and Dan Brenner have led your industry though a time of change and transformation. In some areas, this change is still very much in progress.

For example, I think we all realize that this is pivotal moment for the delivery of broadband services to digital television receivers, and in the transition from a controlled to a competitive market for cable navigation devices. If, on the one hand, we can come to rapid agreement on outstanding technical issues, consumers will enjoy a burst of competition and technological progress that will speed us into the digital video age.

If, on the other hand, we are headed for disappointment and further regulatory proceedings, progress will be set back substantially.

We share an interest in helping you build your business, and build America's broadband future. The consumer electronics industry is huge. Currently Americans have invested over $500 billion in consumer electronics devices. Consumers spend over $9.5 billion annually on TV's alone. However, our products have little value without your servicesÉ.and vice-versa. As industries, we are joined at the hip.

Together, we face a number of impending challenges. The most important is ensuring that consumers will be able to choose among a wide array of products with the full confidence that they will work, with full functionality, with whatever programming source they choose.

Specifically, consumers are demanding a number of things from our industries. They want digital cable services that they can quickly and easily plug into their digital television sets. They will also want to receive advanced cable services though set-top boxes that can be purchased competitively at retail.

Together, we can meet these challenges if we do the following things: First, we must reach rapid agreement on solutions for cable-ready digital receivers and other equipment. Second, we must ensure that open and transparent standards are available that will allow all manufacturers to build competitive navigation devices by the Commission's deadline of July 1, 2000.

We believe, and we hope you agree, that cable-ready digital receivers provide the most consumer friendly solution to the various technical, compatibility, interface, and copy-protection issues associated with cable delivery to DTV receivers.

In addition, cable-ready receivers will eliminate the need for duplicative circuitry in both the set-top box and the receiver, thus reducing the cost and complexity of the equipment needed in the home.

We have provided the National Cable Television Association with a list of elements necessary for our industries to produce "receiver-ready" digital cable systems and "cable-ready" digital receivers. This is not simply a play on words. Rather, it serves to highlight the fact that "compatibility" imposes mutual requirements on both the cable and CE communities.

Our proposal sets forth a cable-ready DTV receiver that will:

• tune all cable and terrestrial channels;
  
• demodulate all cable and terrestrial signals;
  
• decode all cable and terrestrial video formats;
  
• decode system information contained in both terrestrial and cable formats;
  
• handle emergency messaging for both cable and terrestrial signals;
  
• be equipped with a POD (point of deployment) module;
  
• Incorporate copy protection.
  

A receiver with the above attributes is completely "cable-ready." With the addition of a POD security device, it can be connected directly to a digital (or analog) cable system and receive digital "in-the-clear" channels, basic cable networks that are scrambled, premium channels (such as HBO or ShowTime), and, if the local cable system permits, pay per view programs ordered via a manual telephone connection.

In advocating these baseline standards, we are not opposing the advanced interfaces and functionalities championed by CableLabs. Our cable-ready definition defines the basic requirements necessary to ensure compatibility. These requirements represent the floor of digital cable services available to consumers, not a ceiling that will limit further innovation in response to market demands.

Therefore, we believe that universal inclusion of an IEEE 1394 interface is not required for a baseline cable-ready receiver. We understand the cable-industry's desire to have cable-ready sets that process as many cable services as possible. Nevertheless, we are committed to producing a range of receivers that incorporate a range of different features, such as 1394, at a range of prices.

Consumers will not be well served if every cable-ready set includes expensive features that many people may not use. After all, consumer choice is what competitive markets are all about. Our decision to exclude the 1394 interface from our baseline cable-ready definition in no way indicates our lack of support for it. To the contrary, a number of consumer electronics companies have announced that they will be incorporating 1394 into their products as soon as the year 2000 model year, and we believe that many consumers will opt for a 1394-equipped receiver. All consumers, however, must be allowed the choice of purchasing receivers incorporating a variety of different features that meet their specific needs.

In addition to the technical challenges, there are a number of business issues that must also be addressed. For example, manufacturers must be able to offer consumers a wide array of features without the risk that a cable set top box will over-ride them or render them useless. It is critically important that all features of a digital receiver should operate when a receiver is attached to a cable system, including new digital services such as program guides. Not only this the right thing for consumers, but it is also the mandate of Congress as expressed in Section 624A of the Communications Act. We just saw a very exciting Excite home demo, but will it allow the EPG to be accessed?

Cable systems must also ensure that all necessary system information is provided to digital television receivers. Without such information, CE manufacturers and consumers cannot be certain that a "cable-ready" digital television receiver would actually work with any given cable system.

Other issues also remain unresolved. Questions remain concerning the transmission of information through in-band or out-of-band protocols, and emergency messaging standards are not yet complete.

Our industries have been discussing these issues for some time. While some progress has been made, the pace has not been as rapid as we would like.

Now we have the opportunity for a renewed effort. CEMA and NAB have pledged to the FCC that we will undertake our best efforts to reach agreement on these issues by October 31 1999. CEMA has also committed to working with various standards-setting organizations to complete "build-to" standards based on the agreement by the end of 1999.

We recognize that these timetables are challenging, and resolution of these issues will be difficult and time-consuming. But we believe that, with our industries working together aggressively and in good faith, they are reachable.

However, we all know that the cable-ready issue is only part of the story. We must also work together to ensure that competitive navigation devices are available to consumers by the FCC's deadline of July 1, 2000.

This can only happen if all elements of the OpenCable specification are fully executed, specified, and made available in time for manufacturers to design, test and build products by the year 2000 deadline.

From the CE perspective, progress toward the mere availability of POD modules, by July 1, 2000, is necessary but not sufficient. Such progress is meaningless if manufacturers are unable to design the DTV receivers and competitive set-top boxes for the retail market whose function would be enabled by the PODs.

Given industry design and procurement cycles, this means that the OpenCable "build-to" specifications that would make the design of such products feasible must be close to being available now.

For the cable-ready DTVs and competitive retail set-tops, available in 2000, to be attractive to consumers, their specifications must support performance equal in all respects to navigation devices designed for particular cable systems and leased or sold by cable operators themselves.

This means that specifications for all OpenCable extensions, as well as for the "baseline" system must be complete and available to manufacturers in time for design and procurement of devices by July 1, 2000. The only system-specific items necessary for the operation of these devices should be the digital PODs and, in hybrid systems, the analog security.

The range of products enabled by the separable security mechanism must extend from stand-alone set-top-boxes to fully integrated devices such as cable-ready DTVs. Competition &Mac220; not the cable industry's OpenCable process or cable operators other interests &Mac220; should determine whether consumers purchase set-tops plus display devices, or integrated "cable ready" receivers.

For products that will work on cable systems that deploy analog as well as digital conditional access techniques, "build-to" specifications for an efficient analog security interface must also be supported by July 1 2000 &Mac220; or consumers will still need to rent an analog set-top box to go with their digital navigation device.

Such an analog interface must be practical and inexpensive to support in consumer electronics and computer devices in practice, as well as theory. CEMA joined in petitioning the FCC to grant NCTA members relief as to analog-only products; and we expect that the specification for an analog security solution for hybrid systems will be viable for implementation.

Finally, copy protection and related technical interface support issues must be solved, for OpenCable devices, to the same extent and in the same way they are solved for cable operator-provided, system-specific devices. This includes support, as an extension, of the 1394 interface, and of the copy protection methods chosen by OpenCable for application to interfaces.

To accomplish these objectives, it will be necessary for the cable industry to provide, as soon as possible, a complete definition of each interface specification under development. This should include a description of the scope of each specification, and a detailed list of contents referencing specific standards completed or in progress, and a planned schedule for completing each--both within the OpenCable activity and in an actual, authorized standards-setting authorization.

Let me mention certain specifications that are of particular concern: For access and inter-network interoperability of services and their signals, the Baseline OpenCable Standard Network Interface, or "OCI-N" is crucial. This interface provides the proper network-to-customer premises equipment and network-to-network signaling connectivity.

This interface must support open access for point-to-multipoint and point-to-point information transactions, including video and data, and it must provide for all "system information" necessary for manufacturers to incorporate fully functional channel navigation and electronic program guides.

Thus far, the specification for this interface lacks clear and complete cable signal definition for closed captioning, v-chip, and other functionalities. In addition, we see no indication yet that full system information will be provided to allow full navigation and EPG capability by any competitive CE manufacturer Extension capabilities must also be defined for OCI-N. Fully standard definitions of OCI-N signaling and control protocols are key to OpenCable viability. Without this interface the cable network and connecting CE devices will have no viable solution. Another critical outstanding issue is the definition of the Standard Service Information Interface. This standard has many open issues. There are currently not enough mandatory elements to enable the design of DTV receiver products or competitively available set-top boxes.

The specifications for EPG and "middleware" must support full functionality, equal to system-specific devices, across the range of host operating systems. Otherwise, nationally portable operation of OpenCable devices, as promised at the launch of the OpenCable process, will be a myth.

OpenCable must make sufficiently specific EPG specifications and information available to manufacturers, rather than allow MSOs to "auction" this information to manufacturers as if it were not essential. CableLabs should either specify the proprietary data formats or agree to simulcast the EPG data in the clear using profile 6 (PSIP), an industry-standard, non-proprietary format--either way making the data available to all manufacturers on a common, complete-access basis.

We had hoped to see many of these issues addressed in CableLabs recent status report to the FCC. Unfortunately, most of these items were either not mentioned or discussed only in the most general terms. If timely progress cannot be made on these and other outstanding questions, perhaps it is time for us to jointly ask the FCC to proactively step in and oversee the resolution of the issues that separate us.

In terms of moving forward, one important step you could take immediately would be to open your "OpenCable" process to the full participation of all consumer electronics manufacturers and other affected industries.

While we applaud the cable industry for taking on difficult compatibility issues, the process is not currently open to all parties, and OpenCable is not a standards setting body.

Only a truly open process will ensure specifications that are fair and reflective of consumers' interests in affordable multi-function products.

Finally, it is essential that the resulting specifications be translated into definitive technical standards and industry agreements from which any manufacturer can build competitive and nationally portable products. These specifications must then be agreed to and universally supported by the cable industry.

When these issues are resolved, we will all win. We encourage you to work in partnership with the CE industry to bring its size and creativity to bear in helping to make cable programming and services attractive and accessible to a growing number of viewers. A truly "open" process, will benefit your industry, my members, and, most importantly, the American consumer.

CEMA and its members look forward toward continuing to work with NCTA, CableLabs, and their constituents toward timely and successful completion of the OpenCable project as well as the ongoing discussions regarding the definition of a cable-ready DTV receiver. If we are successful, we can look forward to a world of greater choice among commercially available CE products, increased competition for multichannel video programming services, and lower prices for the consumer.

Success, however, must be predicated on a candid recognition of the challenges ahead, and of the level of focused, dedicated effort that will be necessary if they are to be overcome.

Thank you.