There's a ton of information in the FCC's
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It describes, in rather great detail, the options they considered, and why they're proposing the rules specified in Appendices A and B. If you want the TLDR, jump straight to that section. But, you'll get a better understanding of their expectations if you read the body.
I skimmed it- I think these are the four critical elements of their plan.
First, they want cable companies to make their video programming and any relevant metadata necessary to access/use/restrict that programming, available in a a standardized format. This includes copy control information and other rights (i.e., entitlement) data. Of note, they're not proposing to require that all cable companies use the
same standard. Each company can choose whatever they want as long as they choose a standard format developed by an open standards body.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paragraph 36
Under our proposed rule, we would require each MVPD to provide Service Discovery Data, Entitlement Data, and Content Delivery Data for its “Navigable Services”in published, transparent formats that conform to specifications set by open standards bodies. Under this proposal, we would require MVPDs to provide these Information Flows in a manner that does not restrict competitive user interfaces and features.
|
Second, DRM is a fundamental component of this the proposed rule. They use different terms to mean slightly different things- DRM, condition access system, and link protection technology are all slightly different takes on each other- but I think it suffices to simply call it all DRM. Again, the FCC is not requiring all companies use the same DRM system. Each company can pick whatever they want so long as: 1) it's licensable under RAND terms, and 2) the cable companies don't substantially control it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paragraph 60
Accordingly, we propose that MVPDs must support at least one compliant” conditional access system or link protection technology, although they may use others at the same time. A Compliant Security System must be licensable on reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms, and have a Trust Authority that is not substantially controlled by any MVPD or group of MVPDs. An MVPD must make available the three Information Flows in their entirety to devices using one of the Compliant Security Systems chosen by the MVPD. Such a system might include, for example, future iterations of DTCP or certain DRM systems.
|
Third, third-party navigation devices must be capable of the same usage rights as boxes from the cable company. For example, if a cable company DVR can record a show, then they must support a DRM scheme that would allow a third-party STB to record that show.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paragraph 68
The final proposed parity requirement is that, on any device on which an MVPD makes available an application to access its programming, it must support at least one Compliant Security System that offers access to the same Navigable Services with the same rights to use those Navigable Services as the MVPD affords to its own app
|
Fourth, they're still forming their thoughts on certification. The rule doesn't require any sort of certification program, but they're certainly thinking about it. Taken in totality, I think the section discussing "Licensing and Certification" shows that the FCC is really hoping that no will have to stand any new certification program up. To the extent a certification program would be necessary, I think they're hoping that the existing certification and licensing programs for DRM systems would sufficiently cover that need.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paragraph 70
We believe that licensing and certification will play important roles under our proposed approach. MVPDs, MPAA, and companies that supply equipment to MVPDs argue that the Competitive Navigation approach could violate licensing agreements between MVPDs and content companies.
|
02-18-2016, 04:52 PM
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
