Policy

Hollywood: Google TV would put us on board big pirate ship

The studios say the FCC's AllVid proposal, backed by Google, would set up a " …

Matthew Lasar – Jul 22, 2010 10:38 AM | 64

The comments are streaming in from video and content providers on the Federal Communications Commission's AllVid proposal. Quite a few are critical of the scheme, especially those of the trade association representing Hollywood's biggest studios.

Under the plan, cable, satellite, or telco video providers would send their signals to an adapter in your home that would present a standard interface to all your video viewing devices. The adapter could be connected to any gadget that can watch pay TV or Internet content—an HDTV, computer, or whatever else is coming to the market.

But the Motion Picture Association of America dislikes this idea. The AllVid plan "initially sounds appealing," MPAA wrote to the agency, with its potential to allow consumers to "search for a movie from among an MVPD's [multi-video program distributor's] available channels, video-on-demand options, home-archived materials, and Internet offerings."

There's a big problem, however. The proposal presents the risk that "legitimate MVPD and online content sources will be presented in user interfaces alongside illegitimate sources (such as sites featuring pirated content)," MPAA warns. "In essence, this 'shopping mall' approach could enable the purveyor of counterfeit goods to set up shop alongside respected brand-name retailers, causing consumer confusion."

Unsuspecting consumers

The trade association doesn't mention Google TV in its filing, but is essentially reacting to the search engine giant's vision of how AllVid would be implemented. As Google put it in its statement supportive of AllVid, the Google TV vision is a device that can aggregate channels, recorded shows, YouTube videos, and services like NetFlix and Amazon Video on Demand, all over one TV screen—with a typeable search engine mechanism added on. Google is partnering with Sony, Intel, and Logitech to roll the gadget out.

We'll take a pass on the concept, MPAA says. "It would lend the illusion of legitimacy to illegitimate online sources." It might expose "unsuspecting consumers and their children" to pornography, viruses, and spam.

"The Commission should not erode consumer confidence by enabling an arrangement that could lead viewers to access stolen content unwittingly," the filing concludes, "particularly because so many illegitimate online sources are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their appearance, allowing them to deceive consumers into thinking they are legitimate."

We can see where the studios that MPAA represents are coming from, but it should be noted that plenty of Hollywood fare is or will soon be streaming on the 'Net, just a click away from many an "unsuspecting" consumer's favorite file sharing site. There's NetFlix online, Hulu, and the much hyped Comcast/Time Warner Cable TV Everywhere venture—all of whose streaming content a miscreant could watch on one Firefox tab, with the next set to a friendly neighborhood torrent engine.

But MPAA and other filers critical of the AllVid concept raise broader questions that are worth thrashing out, most notably whether the idea is doable or even necessary. Given all the devices, platforms, and applications that are already out there for watching and recording pay TV and broadband video, does a one-size-fits-all device really make sense?

Significant intelligence differences

As an example, the trade group notes the many different ways that different services output program guides for consumers. We've already explored the copyright complexities that AllVid presents in this case, but is squeezing all these different metadata systems through AllVid even doable?

The FCC's Notice of Inquiry on AllVid says that the device would be designed to accommodate "any delivery technology that an MVPD chooses to use and allow MVPDs to continue unfettered innovation in video delivery."

But has the current video environment become too complex for such a simple interface? As Verizon points out, pay TV companies now offer consumers a wide variety of online buying, informational, and two-way support services. They stream their content into a variety of operating systems, which are often proprietary.

And as Motorola observes, there are real differences in the ways that DBS and cable/telco services transmit video services. In the case of DBS video "significant intelligence must reside in the set-top box (e.g., the box must include DVR and other capabilities), and such intelligence cannot be located in the cloud (in contrast to cable and telco networks)."

So notwithstanding the merits of the AllVid concept, couldn't the idea effectively suppress or discourage innovations that are on or heading for the video market?

"While government decision makers may possess the ability to establish a standard before a de facto or voluntary standard appears naturally in the marketplace, they generally lack adequate information to do so wisely when complex and emerging technologies are involved," the National Cable and Telecommunications Association warns.

It's a reasonable point, but as for the pitch that AllVid is a bad idea because it will put Paramount, Sony Pictures, Disney, and Warner Brothers far too close to the nasty old Internet... well, as the trade show geeks like to say, this is the Age of Convergence. That level of proximity is a done deal.

Matthew Lasar Associate writer

Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.

64 Comments