Federal Communications Commission DA 15 -622
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
TiVo Inc.
Petition for Clarification or Waiver of 
47 C.F.R. 76.640(b)(4)(iii)
Implementation of Section 304 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996;
Commercial Availability of Navigation
Devices
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MB Docket No. 14-146
CS Docket No. 97-80
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  May 21, 2015 Released:  May 21, 2015
By the Chief, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Order, we grant, in part, the request by TiVo Inc. (“TiVo”) for waiver of 47 C.F.R 
76.640(b)(4)(iii) of our rules requiring that set-top boxes provided by cable operators include a 
recordable, Internet Protocol (“IP”)-based output.1 We grant this waiver pursuant to Sections 1.3 and 76.7 
of the Commission’s rules until June 1, 2017.  As discussed below, we decline to waive this rule on an 
industry-wide basis, as requested by Verizon and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association 
(“NCTA”). 
II. BACKGROUND
2. In 2003, the Commission adopted Section 76.640 of its rules.  Section 76.640 has two 
purposes:  (1) to “facilitate[e] the direct connection of unidirectional digital cable televisions and products 
to cable systems nationwide,”2 and (2) to “set a baseline of connectivity ensuring that cable subscribers 
are able to fully enjoy the range of services offered by their cable provider in a secure, digital format.”3  
TiVo is seeking a waiver of the home-networking component of Section 76.640, which is related to this 
second purpose. 
  
1 47 C.F.R. § 76.640(b)(4)(iii) (cable operators shall “ensure that the cable-operator-provided high definition set-top 
boxes ... shall comply with an open industry standard that provides for audiovisual communications including 
service discovery, video transport, and remote control command pass-through standards for home networking”).
2 Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Commercial Availability of Navigation 
Devices, Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 20885, 20894, 
¶ 17 (2003) (“2003 CableCARD Order”), vacated by EchoStar Satellite LLC v. FCC, 704 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir 2013).
3 2003 CableCARD Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20897, ¶ 24.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-622
2
3. The regulation adopted in 2003 required cable operators to include an IEEE-1394 interface4
and to comply with standards that would allow subscribers to control their set-top boxes through their 
television remotes via that interface.5 In 2010, the Commission realized that consumer interest in the 
IEEE-1394 interface had waned and that consumers were using interfaces other than IEEE-1394 to 
network their consumer electronics devices.6 Therefore, the Commission modified Section 
76.640(b)(4)(iii) of its rules to replace the IEEE-1394 requirement with one that requires cable operators 
to “ensure that the cable-operator-provided high definition set-top boxes, except unidirectional set-top 
boxes without recording functionality, shall comply with an open industry standard that provides for 
audiovisual communications including service discovery,7 video transport,8 and remote control command 
pass-through9 standards for home networking.”10 This rule was intended to ensure that cable subscribers 
could attach retail devices that they own to their cable boxes and access their subscription services 
through those devices using an open standard widely used in home communications protocols.11  
Although the rule was originally set to go into effect on December 1, 2012, the Media Bureau twice 
granted extensions to TiVo and cable operators that lease set-top boxes to subscribers, allowing them until 
June 1, 2015 (or September 1, 2015 for smaller cable operators) to comply with the rule.12  
  
4 IEEE 1394, also known as Firewire, is an external serial data connection that allows for audio and video data 
transfers.  Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Commercial Availability of 
Navigation Devices, Third Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 25 FCC Rcd 14657, 14677, ¶ 39 (2010) 
(“2010 CableCARD Order”).
5 2003 CableCARD Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20934, App. B (adopting new rule 47 C.F.R. § 76.640(b)(4)).
6 2010 CableCARD Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 14678, ¶ 43 (“We conclude that the best step we can take . . . is to modify 
our interface rule to require cable operators to include an IP-based interface . . . without specifying a physical 
interface.”).
7 Service discovery refers to the protocols that a retail device would use to seamlessly recognize a leased set-top box 
and the services (e.g., video programming) available on a home network.  See Video Device Competition; 
Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Commercial Availability of Navigation 
Devices; Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment, Notice of Inquiry, 25 FCC 
Rcd 4275, 4285-6, ¶ 30, n.53 (2010) (“2010 CableCARD NOI”).
8 Video transport refers to the protocols that a leased set-top box and a retail device would use to transfer digitally 
encoded video from the leased set-top box to the retail device.  See Internet Engineering Task Force, Audio/Video 
Transport, http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/avt/charter/ (last visited April 24, 2015).
9 Remote control command pass-through refers to the ability of a television to pass remote control commands 
entered with the television remote control through to the set-top box (rather than having to use the set-top box 
remote control).  2010 CableCARD Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 14677-9, ¶¶ 40, 44.
10 TiVo Inc.'s Request for Clarification and Waiver of the Audiovisual Output Requirement of Section 
76.640(b)(4)(iii), 27 FCC Rcd 14875, 14875-6, ¶ 2 (MB 2012) (footnotes in original) (“2012 IP-Output Waiver 
Order”); 47 C.F.R. § 76.640(b)(4)(iii); 2010 CableCARD Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 14677-9, ¶¶ 39-44.  Pursuant to 
section 76.640(b)(4)(ii), this output must also be “capable of delivering recordable high definition video and closed 
captioning data in an industry standard format.”  47 C.F.R. § 76.640(b)(4)(ii).
11 2010 CableCARD Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 14677-9, ¶¶ 39-44; 2010 CableCARD NOI, 25 FCC Rcd at 4283, ¶ 22.
12 2012 IP-Output Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 14882-5, ¶¶ 14-18; TiVo Inc’s Request for Clarification or Waiver 
of the Audiovisual Output Requirement of Section 76.640(b)(4)(iii), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 
3674, ¶ 1 (MB 2014) (“2014 TiVo Waiver Order”).  The Bureau granted operators that serve 400,000 or fewer 
subscribers until September 1, 2015 to comply with the rule.  2014 TiVo Waiver Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 3676, ¶ 5.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-622
3
4. On August 29, 2014, TiVo filed a petition for waiver or clarification of the rule for its 
products and services that it supplies to cable operators.13 In its waiver request, TiVo explains that all of 
its products, including those that it sells at retail and those that it sells wholesale to cable operators, 
already contain technology that “provides the home networking functionality outlined in Section 
76.640(b)(4)(iii) . . . but does not use an ‘open industry standard’” as required by the rule.  TiVo explains 
that it could not anticipate the timing or specifications of the ‘open industry standard’ that the Digital 
Living Network Alliance (“DLNA”) developed.14 Instead, “in order to maintain its role in providing 
innovative solutions to retail customers,” TiVo says that it developed and released equipment with home 
networking capabilities, giving consumers the benefits intended by the rule, except that it does not use an 
“open industry standard” as the rule requires.15 TiVo claims that its home networking capabilities, which 
have been available to consumers since 2011, provide more features and functionality than the baseline 
DLNA specification, and that having to “back up” to the DLNA solution would hinder its ability to 
compete both at a retail and wholesale level.16
5. The Media Bureau sought comment on TiVo’s petition via a Public Notice released on 
September 5, 2014.17 NCTA and Verizon did not oppose the grant of a waiver and urged the Commission 
to waive the rule on an industry-wide basis.18 Only the Digital Living Network Alliance (“DLNA”) 
opposed grant of the waiver as to TiVo and on an industry-wide basis.
III. DISCUSSION
6. In light of the specific facts surrounding TiVo’s implementation of its network interoperable 
solution, we conclude that there is good cause to issue a waiver of Section 76.640(b)(4)(iii) to TiVo until 
June 1, 2017, temporarily deferring TiVo’s implementation of the DLNA standard.  Although TiVo does 
not use an “open industry standard” as required by the rule, we find that its network interoperability 
solution enables subscribers to set up a home network and, given TiVo’s market share, we do not believe 
  
13 TiVo Petition at 2 (filed August 29, 2014).  TiVo states that its request for waiver is “premised on the assumption 
that Section 76.640(b)(4)(iii) remains an active regulation because its text was released in the Commission’s Third 
R&O rather than in the vacated Second R&O.” TiVo Petition at 14.  TiVo notes that, if the Commission were to 
“determine that this regulation is no longer operative based on EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. v. FCC,” its Petition “may 
be treated as one for clarification.”  TiVo Petition at 3, n.6, 14.  TiVo is not, however, seeking a clarification that the 
rules have been vacated, and states that it has opposed such clarification in a prior proceeding.  Tivo Petition at 14.  
NCTA and Verizon, on the other hand, argue that Section 76.640(b)(4)(iii) is no longer effective after the Echostar 
decision.  NCTA Reply Comments at 2-3; Verizon Comments at 7-8.  As TiVo notes, the Commission has not yet 
taken a position on whether the rule is effective after the D.C. Circuit’s decision in the Echostar case.  TiVo Petition 
at 14.  Given this, we continue to assume, for purposes of this waiver request, that the rule is still in effect. 
14 TiVo Petition at 5.  DLNA is a technology standards organization that, with its member companies, developed the 
DLNA Interoperability Guidelines.  Consumer products that conform to these standards allow consumers to share 
content across devices in a connected home environment.  See DLNA Reply Comments at 1-2.  
15 TiVo Petition at 4-5, 8. 
16 TiVo Petition at 7. 
17 Public Notice, Media Bureau Seeks Comment on TiVo’s Request for Waiver or Clarification of the Audiovisual 
Output Requirement of Section 76.640(b)(4)(iii), MB Docket No. 14-146, Sept. 5, 2014.  
18 Verizon Comments at 2; NCTA Reply Comments at 2.  Both parties also asked the Commission to state that the 
rule is no longer in effect.  For reasons explained in note 13, above, this Order does not decide this issue.  Verizon 
Comments at 7-8; NCTA Reply Comments at 2-3.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-622
4
that a temporary waiver will undermine the goals of Section 76.640(b)(4)(iii).19 Based on the evidence 
before us, we find that TiVo has shown good cause, and that waiving this rule with respect to TiVo’s set-
top boxes will serve the public interest, as required by Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the Commission’s rules, 
respectively.20  
7. The evidence in the record supports granting a limited waiver to TiVo and the cable operators 
that lease TiVo set-top boxes to their subscribers because TiVo has shown that its set-top boxes fulfill the 
objective of the rule, despite not using an open industry standard,21 and that strict compliance with the 
rule would be unduly burdensome.22 We find that TiVo has shown that “any benefits achieved by its 
proposal are in the public interest and that a limited waiver will not compromise the fundamental policies 
served by the rule.”23
8. TiVo is a retail-based competitor, selling home DVRs at retail that rely on CableCARD to 
interface with owners’ subscription services.  TiVo also sells its boxes at wholesale to certain cable 
operators, who in turn lease those boxes to subscribers.  TiVo has offered products with home networking 
capability for many years.  In June 2011, TiVo began offering (through its cable operator partners) 
devices capable of multi-room streaming that allowed recordings to be shared among TVs in the home.24  
Other products and services have since allowed TiVo customers to stream programs to iPads and iPhones, 
send live and recorded video, operator VOD, and broadband-delivered content to other televisions in the 
home, and view content on home computers, mobile devices, and tablets.25 As the Commission has 
explained, the purpose of Section 76.640(b)(4)(iii) is to “enable connectivity with the multitude of IP 
devices in consumers’ homes.”26 We find that TiVo’s solution advances that purpose and has furthered 
the goal of allowing cable subscribers to take advantage of all of the features their subscription service 
has to offer.  
9. In its discretion, the Commission may waive a rule where the “particular facts would make 
strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest.”27 We find that requiring TiVo to add support for 
an open industry standard to its boxes would unfairly disadvantage TiVo after its early innovation in 
  
19 As TiVo described in its Petition, its “domestic base is less than two percent of all cable subscribers.”  TiVo 
Petition at 12. 
20 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 76.7.  
21 TiVo Petition at 8.  This waiver serves to assure TiVo’s wholesale customers that they will not risk running afoul 
of Section76.640(b)(4)(iii) by continuing to offer TiVo’s boxes without the DLNA standard during the waiver 
period.  
22 TiVo Petition at 11-12. 
23 Midwest Communications, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 159, 160, ¶ 5 (1991).
24 TiVo Petition at 4.
25 Id.
26 2012 IP-Output Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 14876, ¶ 2 (citing Implementation of Section 304 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices: Compatibility Between Cable 
Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 20885, 20902, ¶ 20 
(2010)).  See also 2010 CableCARD Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 14679, ¶ 44 (stating that the rule was “necessary to 
provide a foundation for a retail market of navigation devices that are connected to leased set-top boxes with limited 
capabilities.”).  
27 Northeast Cellular Tel. Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (citing WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 
1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969)).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-622
5
home networking.28 As the process of implementing Section 76.640(b)(4)(iii) has unfolded, TiVo 
repeatedly emphasized that it “must continue to develop and market competitive products rather than 
wait” for the DLNA process to progress, in order to remain competitive.29 TiVo has now developed and 
rolled out products and services that deliver much of what the rule intended to accomplish.  We find it 
particularly persuasive that TiVo began deploying a home networking solution even before the original 
deadline of the rule and ahead of any other set-top box provider.30 Although TiVo’s solution does not 
utilize an open industry standard, we nevertheless conclude that its investment in an alternative solution 
justifies an extension of the deadline for its equipment.  We note that TiVo’s home networking solution is 
proprietary, and as such its equipment does not communicate with other DLNA-enabled devices.  We 
continue to believe in the benefits of an interoperable, open industry standard that allows “industries to 
build devices and services that work together without consultation.”31 Because device interoperability 
remains a Commission goal, we are granting TiVo this waiver on an interim basis, as opposed to 
indefinitely, because the use of an open industry standard remains an important part of our home 
networking rule.
10. The Digital Living Network Alliance urges the Commission to deny TiVo’s request for 
waiver.  It argues that TiVo’s solution does not conform to the goals of Section 76.640(b)(4)(iii) because 
it relies on a proprietary solution instead of an open industry standard, that the DLNA guidelines have 
been available long enough to enable implementation, and that the public should not have to wait for 
DLNA-enabled equipment to become available.32 While we agree that the public will benefit from the 
availability of DLNA-compatible home networking equipment, we do not believe that, given its relatively 
small subscriber base, lack of DLNA support on TiVo’s devices will undermine the development of 
DLNA-compatible home networking equipment.  Further, we disagree with DLNA that TiVo’s solution 
does not, as an interim matter, advance the goals of Section 76.640(b)(4)(iii).  As discussed above, TiVo’s 
solution offers its subscribers multi-room and multi-platform features to access content throughout their 
homes, satisfying some of the goals of Section 76.640(b)(4)(iii).  Further, because TiVo’s solution is 
proprietary and we continue to believe that interoperability of consumer electronics equipment would 
  
28 In an analogous context, the Bureau recognized Cablevision’s prior investment in and deployment of its 
SmartCard security system by granting a limited waiver of the integration ban rules.  Cablevision Systems 
Corporation’s Request for Waiver of Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission’s Rules, 22 FCC Rcd 220, ¶ 1, 
(2007).  The Bureau found that Cablevision acted ahead of other cable operators on this issue, began implementing 
its security solution prior to Commission clarification of the rule, and had fully deployed a solution that effectively 
furthered the goals of the integration ban, although not in full compliance of Section 76.1204(a)(1), and that a two-
year waiver was justified.  Id. at ¶ 20.  As described above, TiVo similarly developed its own home-networking 
solution prior to other players in the market, prior to the publication of the DLNA standard, and in furtherance of the 
goals of Section 76.640(b)(4)(iii).  
29 TiVo Petition at 5. 
30 TiVo Petition at 4-5 (dating its devices with home-networking capabilities back to June 2011, a year before the 
initial deadline for compliance).
31 2012 IP-Output Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 14878, ¶ 9 (“When the Commission revised Section 
76.640(b)(4)(iii) in the 2010 CableCARD Order, it had interoperability between video programming services and 
devices in mind.”).   
32 DLNA Comments at 4. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-622
6
benefit the public, we have only allowed for a temporary waiver of the rule.33 For these reasons, we 
disagree with DLNA that a limited waiver is not warranted in this case.    
11. NCTA and Verizon urge the Commission to waive the rule on an industry-wide basis if the 
rule is waived for TiVo.34 We decline to waive this rule on an industry-wide basis.  We rely in this 
decision on TiVo’s showing that it has implemented a home networking solution well ahead of the 
compliance deadline that achieves one of the purposes of the rule.  Neither NCTA nor Verizon made any 
such showing regarding any solution they are testing, developing, or implementing, and thus they lack 
good cause for a waiver.35 Should they demonstrate good cause for a waiver, we will consider it at that 
time. 
IV. CONCLUSION
12. For the reasons stated herein, we conclude that TiVo has shown good cause for a temporary 
waiver until June 1, 2017 of 47 C.F.R 76.640(b)(4)(iii) of the Commission’s rules for TiVo’s boxes 
provided at wholesale to cable operators.
  
33 As DLNA described, proprietary solutions “make the implementers beholden to the proprietor,” whereas the goal 
of interoperability “is to free consumer electronics manufacturers from dependence on non-uniform and varying 
systems and protocols . . . .”  DLNA Comments at 4.  
34 NCTA Reply Comments at 2; Verizon Comments at 2.
35 For the reasons stated above and given that only TiVo filed a petition specifying a particularized basis for waiver 
of the rule, we are waiving the rule only as to TiVo and the cable operators that supply TiVo set-top boxes.  We note 
that DLNA has certified more than 25,000 product models, and that more than three billion of those devices have 
been sold, all ahead of the rule’s June 1, 2015 implementation deadline.  DLNA Reply Comments at 2.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-622
7
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the Commission’s 
rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3 and 76.7, that TiVo Inc.’s request for waiver of Section 76.640(b)(4)(iii) IS 
GRANTED to the extent described above until June 1, 2017. 
14. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.283 of the Commission’s 
rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William Lake
Chief, Media Bureau