Today, I filed my first comment on a petition before the FCC. For years, I’ve been blogging, working on campaigns, and speaking with legislators about proposed laws but this is the first time that I’ve really ventured into the rules making side of governance.

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about how Cablevision seeks to encrypt basic cable in New York City. I’ve sent various emails back and forth about this and finally got around to submitting my comment.

I used the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System. First, I spent a bit of time exploring the site. I went back and forth about whether I should send my comment as an email or submit it via the web. I spent time looking for other comments. Using the Search for Filed Comments form, I found Cablevision’s initial request and fourteen comments about the request.

It was mostly individuals writing in opposition to Cablevision’s request and included letters that had been mailed, as well as plenty of quick comments that appear to have been submitted online. I was particularly impressed by a comment from Adam Steinberg, Director, Product Line Management for Elgato. He started off by noting that Elgato “is the leading vendor of products that permit watching of televison [sic] on Macintosh Computers” and went on to say, “All of our TV tuner products support watching unencrypted digital cable.”

I’m a PC guy so I haven’t encountered Elgato before, but I use a product that sounds like it is similar to Elgato and I thought Mr. Steinberg argued very well one of my concerns about why the Cablevision request should be denied.

I looked at other comments, and tried to mimic, as much as possible, the formatting and style of the ones that seemed most effective. Hopefully, this will add credibility to my comment. In the end, I wrote it and formatted it in Microsoft Word, so I used the online form to submit the comment.

Submitting the comment was very easy and soon, I found the comment online.

I was pleasantly surprised at how easy it was to create and submit a comment on an issue before the FCC and I would encourage others to do so.

In case people have problems accessing the comment on the FCC website, I am including it here, below the fold.

Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )
)
Cablevision Systems Corporation ) MB Docket No. 09-168
)
Petition for Waiver of Section 76.630(a) of )
The Commission’s Rules As Applied to )
Cablevision’s New York City All-Digital )
Systems )

Comments by Aldon Hynes

Aldon Hynes hereby submits the following comments in response to Cablevision Systems Corporation’s (“Cablevision”) request of the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) for permission to encrypt its basic service tier in its New York City franchise areas at the time that Cablevision converts its entire system to a digital-only transmission mode.

Aldon Hynes is a resident of Woodbridge, CT, a Cablevision subscriber, an independent software developer, a member of the town’s Government Access Commission and the designee by the First Selectman to the third party provider for Public, Educational and Government access in Cable Area Two in Connecticut. He is writing on his own behalf and not on behalf of any commissions or other organizations.

Cablevision’s Petition for Waiver of Section 76.630(a) of the Commission’s Rules presents an interesting, and at first glance compelling reason to waive the FCC’s rules concerning encryption of basic cable. It is clearly in the best interest of the country to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions by service vehicles connecting and disconnecting cable service. However, there are much better ways to address this issue than by encrypting basic cable, such as changing the service fleet to reduce CO2 emissions.

Crucial to Cablevision’s argument is the unfounded assertion that “Today's cable subscribers typically do not have an expectation---or the capability---of receiving digital cable services without a set-top box.” Not only is this assertion unfounded, it appears to be patently false. Many people purchase digital televisions and computer devices that they use in addition to set-top boxes in their main television viewing area. Requiring additional set-top boxes will incur greater costs to customers, unless Cablevision is willing to provide unlimited set-top boxes to all their subscribers free of charge.

Even were Cablevision to make such a provision, it would still have a negative effect on those using devices to receive television signals on their computers. Such devices are often orders of magnitude smaller than set-top boxes and provide greater portability and functionality.

If the majority of digital television receivers sold today supported CableCard and Cablevision were willing to provide unlimited free CableCards to subscribers, the petition might also have more validity. However, most retailers are only selling digital television receivers that do not support CableCard. Encrypting digital cable would make these devices useless without the acquisition of an additional set-top box.

Since Cablevision’s petition to encrypt their digital signal would limit the types of devices that can directly receive such signals, the petition would also have a negative impact on retailers, wholesalers and developers that provide digital tuners. Not only would there be a negative impact on sales, but there would be a negative impact on innovation.

Another important cost to consider is how such a change would affect Public, Educational and Government (PEG) access viewership. In these days of turmoil in the realm of journalism and media, it is imperative that PEG access be protected and not made harder to view via encryption or other changes to how PEG channels are made available to subscribers. Cablevision’s petition would be a disincentive to subscribers to continue viewing PEG channels.

One final concern is that the petition from Cablevision bases their argument partly on precedent. A decision to support Cablevision’s petition would set an extremely bad precedent potentially affecting subscribers in many different areas.

For all these reasons, the petition by Cablevision should be denied. If the Commission decides to grant the petition, they should only do so with strong caveats, such as requiring Cablevision to provide unlimited free set-top boxes and Cablecards to all subscribers, applying a very short sunset to the exception and noting that the exception should not be used to establish precedent for any other requests.

Dated: October 21, 2009
Respectfully submitted,

Aldon Hynes
815 Fountain St
Woodbridge, CT 06525
http://www.orient-lodge.com