FCC Record, Volume 25, No. 5, Pages 3497 to 4389, April 5 - April 23, 2010 Page: 4,286
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
necessary for the AllVid adapter to query whether the navigation device still requires access to the
31. Content Encoding. A recent controversy over audio-visual codec55 support has led to
heightened awareness about the issue of content encoding." Ideally, navigation devices should be
designed to decode content that has been encoded in a number of specified formats and the AllVid
adapter should be designed to transfer content in at least one of those formats. This would allow MVPDs
to encode their content as they wish without the need for the AllVid adapter to transcode the content,
which could make the AllVid adapter more expensive and less energy efficient. We seek comment on
whether the Commission would need to specify the formats, and, if so, on the audio-visual codecs that the
Commission should require navigation devices to handle.
32. Intellectual Property. The Commission seeks comment on intellectual property issues related
to proposed standards for the AllVid adapter. How long would it take for the necessary standards to be
developed, and what costs would be involved? Would a requirement that all rights holders license their
relevant intellectual property on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms allow the market to flourish and
provide adequate incentives for innovation? Does the Commission have the legal authority to mandate
such terms? We seek comment on whether patent pools exist for any technologies that the might be
adopted. We seek comment on the licensing fees charged by patent holders for these technologies, and
which parties hold those rights. We also seek comment on any other intellectual property issues relevant
to the AllVid concept.
33. Other Issues. The Commission also seeks comment on any additional standardization work
that would be necessary to implement the AllVid regime. For example, we seek comment on how the
AllVid adapter should resolve resource conflicts. If a subscriber's home is equipped to handle six
separate video streams and seven people in the home want to watch programming on seven different
devices, which devices take precedence? Should the most recent device to make a request have the ability
to override the conflict and choose which device to exclude? We seek comment on innovative ways to
resolve device conflicts.
34. Several commenters have highlighted issues regarding how a home network would handle
emergency alert system ("EAS") messages, closed captioning data, and MVPD parental controls? We
note that there are existing standards to transmit closed captianing diaa" and pental control data" for
broadcast television and unencrypted cable television. We seek comment on whether these sandards can
be adapted readily to perform these functions in the AllVid regime or whether new standards
" Audio-visual codes are methods of converting audio-visual signals to digital data and converting the digital data
back to an audio-visual signal. Competing codec technologies aim to achieve divergent goals, such as to maintain
the quality of the audio-visual signal, compress the data as much as possible so that it occupies a limited amount of
bandwidth, or require the encoding and decoding devices to have limited processing power so that they are
affordable and energy efficient.
'- Executives from Apple and Adobe have had a public disagreement about the merits of Adobe's Flash codec and
Apple's decision not to include Flash codec compatibility in its iPad device. See, e.g., Rob Pegoraro, Apple iPad's
rejection of Adobe Flash could signal the player 's death knell, THE WASHINGTON POST, Feb. 7, 2010, available at
blog&sid=ST2010020501 139; Ben Worthen and Yukari Iwatani Kane, New iPad Puts Focus On Apple s Flash
Feud, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Feb. 1 , 2010, at B1.
"7 See, e.g., NCTA Reply to NBP PN #27 at 15, Letter from Linda Kinney, Vice President, Law and Regulation,
Echostar Satellite, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Attachment at 3
(Feb. 22, 2010).
.5 See 47 C.F.R. 15.122.
5 See 47 C.F.R. 76.640.
Federal Communications Commission
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 25, No. 5, Pages 3497 to 4389, April 5 - April 23, 2010, book, April 2010; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28495/m1/803/: accessed March 18, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.