1
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MEREDITH A. BAKER
Re:  Video Device Competition, MB Docket No. 10-91; Implementation of Section 304 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices, CS 
Docket No. 97-80, Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics 
Equipment, PP Docket No. 00-67.
I support these two items to examine steps to improve how our existing CableCARD 
regime works and to begin an exploration of a long-term replacement for the CableCARD.  The 
Commission’s actions today signal something that consumers and consumer electronic 
manufacturers decided some time ago:  the retail CableCARD market has not worked as we 
intended.  There are, however, over 400,000 retail CableCARDs deployed, and consumers are 
still buying retail CableCARD devices.  I, therefore, support the effort in the Notice to consider 
steps to streamline and improve the provisioning and installation of CableCARDs to benefit 
those consumers.  Given our decision to ultimately replace the CableCARD regime, I hope we 
can avoid taking any steps that would significantly increase the implementation and operational 
costs on cable operators, consumer electronic manufacturers, or consumers to support 
CableCARD devices. 
As we consider a long-term solution, I hope that we recall valuable lessons from the 
CableCARD regime.  First, our technological mandates come with significant costs.  By one 
estimate, the cost of CableCARD compliance for the cable industry alone – costs passed on to 
cable consumers – has totaled nearly one billion dollars.1 Second, we should be careful not to 
mandate particular technological solutions that would freeze into place the current state of 
technology.  We need to craft flexible rules that foster continued investment and innovation both 
on the network and device level.  We should also not inhibit the ability of MVPDs to continue to 
invest in innovative devices and offerings.  There are numerous promising collaborative efforts 
in home network and industry standard setting bodies to provide consumers with greater 
flexibility and options in how to view their video content.  Hopefully, that spirit of collaboration 
between MVPD and consumer electronic companies will carry over to our consideration of a 
post-CableCARD regime. 
Our long-term objective for these proceedings should be clear from the start.  We have an 
obligation under section 629 of the Act to “assure the commercial availability” of retail 
navigation devices to access MVPD programming. Section 629’s statutory mandate intended to 
provide consumers navigation device options at retail, not dictate how they view video 
programming at home. Nor did section 629 intend to compel consumers to purchase navigation 
devices.  We should be mindful that not all consumers want the latest technology:  over 100 
million televisions in cable households today are not connected to a set-top box at all.  
Consumers may also prefer certain conveniences—lower upfront costs, ease of installation and 
upgrade—that come with leasing devices. 
  
1 Letter from Neal M. Goldberg, Vice President and General Counsel, National Cable & Telecommunications 
Association, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CS Docket No. 97-80, at 14 
(December 22, 2009).
2
On the other end of the spectrum, we have also seen a great increase in interest and 
availability of Internet-delivered video programming from multiple vendors through dedicated 
devices, video game consoles, and Blu-ray players.  Consumer electronic manufacturers are
providing direct Internet connectivity to the television; cable, satellite and telco video providers 
are innovating and investing in home network solutions, over-the-top video, and greater 
interactivity and functionality in leased devices.  Importantly, the bulk of this new investment 
and innovation is occurring in the competitive market without any Commission intervention, 
separate and apart from our CableCARD regime.    
Lastly, the National Broadband Plan framed this issue as one of broadband adoption. I 
agree that our set-top box policy does relate to broadband, but I believe that it relates primarily to 
broadband deployment, not adoption.  In order to provide higher speeds and more advanced 
broadband offerings, cable operators need to reclaim spectrum dedicated to video programming 
without eliminating the hundreds of video channels available to subscribers today. We should be 
vigilant that our set-top box policy does not unintentionally frustrate the efforts of cable 
operators investing in their next-generation broadband networks by putting up roadblocks to an 
affordable transition to all-digital operations or raising uncertainty about investment in more 
efficient technologies like switched digital video.