President Backs FCC Plan To Break Open Cable Set-Top Market

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The White House is standing with the FCC as it attempts to force cable and satellite TV providers to open their set-top box platforms to competition, which is something the pay-television lobby has fought fiercely for years.

“Instead of spending nearly $1,000 over four years to lease a set of behind-the-times boxes, American families will have options to own a device for much less money that will integrate everything they want — including their cable or satellite content, as well as online streaming apps — in one, easier-to-use gadget,” Obama economic advisers Jason Furman and Jeffrey Zients wrote in a blog post Friday. The FCC, in a 3-2 vote in February, moved forward with a proposal to “open up” the set-top box market by establishing a technical platform that would let third-party manufacturers like Apple, Google, Roku or Amazon create their own set-tops capable of receiving cable or satellite TV programming.
 
CableCARD was supposed to do this, but it hasn't been viable for most people.

I would probably get a new box just because the one I have has a really slow guide function because it's loaded down with too many functions... it runs like a 2005 laptop trying to pull up a modern web page.

Might be the only thing Obama has suggested that I've actually liked.
 
Agree.

My main hatred with cable (and I cut the cable cord a LONG time ago) is crap like the Comcast box... It's INCREDIBLY slow to scroll, at the bottom of each page is an ad that you might accidentally click on... WORST of all though? If you have 50 channels out of the 500+ channels, have fun remembering which ones you get and which you don't. God forbid you activate a setting so that it only shows which channels you do have...

But that would be too convenient, and we can't have that. God knows the moment I turn to that channel I want to watch and it says that I don't get the channel I'm going to immediately call up Comcast and request them to upgrade my service at the cost of more money month-to-month :rolleyes:
 
Why fight this? Sounds like the cable industry can easily make this work in their advantage.

Non-Leased Box Access Fee $9.99

Simple enough. That way they can make even more money because they don't have to supply or support the hardware! These executives fighting this clearly weren't thinking about the best possible way to bend their customer over.

This is the exact tactic that the satellite companies went to when they started allowing boxes to be purchased and used (such as TiVo, or used boxes). They changed the "lease" to an "access" fee and went about their business. Except those who leased at least had a claim if the box went tits up, those that brought their own were SOL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dain
like this
Cyraxx said:
WORST of all though? If you have 50 channels out of the 500+ channels, have fun remembering which ones you get and which you don't. God forbid you activate a setting so that it only shows which channels you do have...
Click to expand...

Even a problem with Media center and a cable card.
I can manually hide the channels I don't get (or don't want).
However they constantly make changes, or move channels around, so a few weeks later there are dozens of channel I don't get showing again.
 
Competition would be great. Lower prices, better features, and a huge "fuck you" to the cable companies.
 
Skripka said:
Just in time for cable TV to bite teh dust.
Click to expand...

It sure seems like it. Then again, I am a cord cutter so am somewhat out of it when it comes to TV shows.

I tried cable card, found that they did just about everything they could to make it not work worth a damn, and then I got fed up and just cut the cord. Netflix, Hulu, Prime, and others fill the gap more than adequately. If I was still into sports, I might have an issues with being a cord cutter, but even that is getting to be doable without cable.

That said, allowing more choice is normally a good thing.
 
Spidey329 said:
Why fight this? Sounds like the cable industry can easily make this work in their advantage.

Non-Leased Box Access Fee $9.99

Simple enough. That way they can make even more money because they don't have to supply or support the hardware! These executives fighting this clearly weren't thinking about the best possible way to bend their customer over.

This is the exact tactic that the satellite companies went to when they started allowing boxes to be purchased and used (such as TiVo, or used boxes). They changed the "lease" to an "access" fee and went about their business. Except those who leased at least had a claim if the box went tits up, those that brought their own were SOL.
Click to expand...

But this is exactly the reason DirecTV used to be able to be hacked for free TV. They used to have several manufacturers for their boxes and their access card technology was out sourced. Once they brought all the development in house, their service has essentially become hack proof. Can't program the cards for free TV. I can see them fighting tooth and nail for this exact reason.
 
I cut the cord years ago. I have a Roku and a new Apple TV in my house. (Roku is a better device IMHO).
We had TWC actually offer us cable+ internet cheaper than just internet. So, I took them up on it. Bad picture quality. No one in my house watched cable - my kids were like WTH? Commercials? You have to wait a specific time before a show broadcasts? They really thought I was messing with them. Once the promotion ran out, I got rid of it.
 
The problem with cord cutting is that far too many of the shows we watch are not available online (some ever, some for a year or more) -- and almost none of the sport events ever are, nor are almost any of the Lifetime/Hallmark movies my wife watches all the time (most weekends, all tuners on my HTPC's are usually totally loaded).

I, for one, can't wait for them to do this, just on principle -- as long as they do it in a decent manner to where I can maintain my HTPC's, etc.

And with regards to the "Non-Leased Box Access Fee $9.99" comment -- that won't happen due to FCC regulations. This is the same reason that the cable companies weren't legally able to charge you anything other than a "tracking fee" for several years (they can now charge you an additional outlet fee/lease fee for one, but it cannot exceed the cost of a standard box -- i.e. they cannot legally penalize you for using your own equipment even now). They also cannot legally prevent you from or bill you extra for using a multi-stream tuner with a single cable card (e.g. a 6 tuner Ceton).

Personally, this isn't going to make a huge difference to me these days, as I already flushed all my cable boxes and have multiple HDHomeRun Primes with CableCards feeding everything in my house (i.e. my primary TV's have full WMC HTPC's on them, and my secondary TV's [spare bedroom, exercise room, etc] have either RPi2's or ECS Liva's running Kodi with the HDHomeRun plugin on them), but I still fully support it and hope they really stick it to the cable companies as much as possible.

"my kids were like WTH? Commercials?" - heh. I liked this. Other than on live sports, I don't know when I last watched commercials on anything. DVRMSToolbox+Comskip makes for very nice recordings.
 
Unfortunately for me, Comcast is a monopoly in my building but we did cut out almost everything from our previous subscription (over the years it ballooned to 225ish dollars from IIRC 100ish promotion).

Now it's 60 bucks for basic TV (which they basically threw in for free) and 25Mb internet - which is cheaper than the internet by itself.

I just use Amazon (via my Fire TV box), Netflix and just recently, Playstation Vue. I also had a Sling TV subscription but the UI and service just wasn't that great (now cancelled).

Vue is great all around except it's tied to your house / PS4 / PS3 / Fire TV / IOS device (which I can't use since I'm an android guy). Sling TV has a poor UI but can be used on pretty much any device made.
 
I'm no fan of government, but instead of opening STB's, they should allow the break-up of the regional strangleholds that cable companies have and open everything up.
 
Methadras said:
I'm no fan of government, but instead of opening STB's, they should allow the break-up of the regional strangleholds that cable companies have and open everything up.
Click to expand...

That would be socialism. Clearly, private business does everything better.
 
Uvaman2 said:
i think it would be more capitalism
Click to expand...

Nope. The cable and ISP infrastructure is privately built and owned. By "breaking up" ISPs/cablecos (which are one in the same IRL), you necessarily have to seize private corporate property and give it to someone else....or seize it and maintain ownership of it and grant private usage of the infrastructure to companies. Either way you have to "steal" private property.


Same way to build a wall along the Mexico border you must eminent domain people's property. Which has happened, people have had their land "condemned" and seized to get the stretches of fence built thus far, built.
 
Spidey329 said:
Why fight this? Sounds like the cable industry can easily make this work in their advantage.

Non-Leased Box Access Fee $9.99

Simple enough. That way they can make even more money because they don't have to supply or support the hardware! These executives fighting this clearly weren't thinking about the best possible way to bend their customer over.

This is the exact tactic that the satellite companies went to when they started allowing boxes to be purchased and used (such as TiVo, or used boxes). They changed the "lease" to an "access" fee and went about their business. Except those who leased at least had a claim if the box went tits up, those that brought their own were SOL.
Click to expand...

It's so sad that the majority of american's believe govt can fix these problems with more rules. Keep keeping on, and pointing out the economic stupidity coming from "our benevolent rulers."
 
the_servicer said:
Do people care? I have a browser on YouTube and Blu-ray player in my home.
Click to expand...
Oh yea? I have a Plex server at home, and YouTube player in my car. Actually the car can access the Plex server as well. What was this thread again? Cable? LOLOLOL!!
 
Already started and stopped doing this with mythtv, like 10 years ago. Yet again, the FCC is behind the times. They even upped the definition of minimum broadband to a useless level, barf. Where's the innovation? It's not in Washington.
 
CRTC (CAD version of FCC) recently forced TV providers to provide a basic TV package for just $25.00 and then you buy addon channels but now they charge you $100.00 hookup fee and the individual channle cost makes it more expensive than buying a package.
 
I'm not worried about the programming packages so much as general access. My building has an exclusive contract with Comcast, so you can't even use another vender even if you wanted to and everyone knows what happens in a monopoly - they can jack up prices as much as they want, while service remains as crappy as ever.
 
rezerekted said:
CRTC (CAD version of FCC) recently forced TV providers to provide a basic TV package for just $25.00 and then you buy addon channels but now they charge you $100.00 hookup fee and the individual channle cost makes it more expensive than buying a package.
Click to expand...

If anyone thinks this wouldn't be the outcome in the USA they are stupid

I've rented a cablecard for 4+ years and used WMC to save on the box rental and DVR fee (20+ bucks a month).
 
Skripka said:
Nope. The cable and ISP infrastructure is privately built and owned. By "breaking up" ISPs/cablecos (which are one in the same IRL), you necessarily have to seize private corporate property and give it to someone else....or seize it and maintain ownership of it and grant private usage of the infrastructure to companies. Either way you have to "steal" private property.
Click to expand...

"Breaking them up" -- a la the original AT&T breakup -- was all about capitalism, not socialism. Specifically, it was designed to encourage competition, which was the entire impetus behind the Clayton and Sherman Anti-Trust Acts to begin with. What we have now are virtual monopolies -- and, in some case, actual monopolies, where counties only allow and license one provider per region. The problem with this is that, unlike public utilities like water & power, they are NOT being regulated as monopolies. So, they need to either start allowing more competition (e.g. allow access to their poles, grant licenses to multiple cable providers per region, remove barriers to entry, etc) or, if they want to retain their defacto monopoly status, then they need to start being regulated just like water and power are (i.e. every price increase has to be approved by local municipality, etc).

Furthermore, all the big players like Comcast, Verizon, Time-Warner, Cox, Charter, etc. have what amount to unspoken gentleman's agreements not to try moving into each others territories -- they are basically never in direct competition with each other (except possibly for Verizon, due to their presence in the mobile market, but that is handled almost totally separately from the cable division). Collusion to allow price fixing or to divvy up a market in such a manner as to create an effective monopoly in a given region is 100% against the Clayton Act: S2 - "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States...shall be deemed guilty of a felony".

Essentially, capitalism cannot function when one or more parties use extra-legal methods to create or maintain an artificial economic environment absent of legitimate competition.

Potential solution: mandate that all municipalities must allow free and unfettered access to poles and utility right of way, for any legitimate business in said markets, but allow the owners of the poles to charge a reasonable amount for said access (i.e. enough to cover proportional maintenance and depreciated installation charges). Then enact tax subsidies for any broadband or cable provider that expands their penetration into other markets -- which will encourage them to start moving into each others territories and will also encourage them to start spending money on infrastructure and growth (i.e. hiring people and creating jobs). And then make it VERY clear to them that if they don't start trying to compete in each others markets, that the FTC will consider this a sign that actual collusion or illegal attempts to maintain a monopoly status are ongoing, and then bring charges against them under Clayton and/or Sherman.
 
Get a handful of players racing to the bottom, and eventually, you reach a point where one or more of them can no longer compete in the region and leave. Then what remains can jack the prices back up because they now have a regional monopoly that occurred without anything extra legal happening. Neither Clayton or Sherman applies, and good luck proving anything else.

I believe there should be more competition. But your solution is temporary at best. The above paragraph would happen. Much as I hate government regulation, this is one case where light regulation might be required. If only our government understood the concept of lightly regulating. Since they don't we would see stagnation, and possibly a whole host of other unpleasant problems like government censorship.
 
Skripka said:
That would be socialism. Clearly, private business does everything better.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that. Government regulated monopolies are the latest socialist fad. Both sides get most of what they want while they can engage in a lot of public theater and finger pointing.
 
It's a nice idea but has a 0% chance of saving customers any money. Cable companies will just adjust their prices/fees accordingly so you're paying the same amount.
 
I dont' know how this is so hard to understand. It's basically the same principle as buying your own cable modem as opposed to renting. They could even use the same MAC address implementation combined with some kind of rolling code DRM for video. The box would have to be connected to the cable network anyway to get signal, so it wouldn't be like offline DVD or BluRay DRM which is apparently easily hackable.

Look forward to my Roku 5 having a TV tuner. :)
 
steakman1971 said:
I cut the cord years ago. I have a Roku and a new Apple TV in my house. (Roku is a better device IMHO).
We had TWC actually offer us cable+ internet cheaper than just internet. So, I took them up on it. Bad picture quality. No one in my house watched cable - my kids were like WTH? Commercials? You have to wait a specific time before a show broadcasts? They really thought I was messing with them. Once the promotion ran out, I got rid of it.
Click to expand...

I had free cable for years, splitter off my neighbors apartment. It was rigged that way when we moved in. When that stopped working, I never got it reconnected. Six to seven years later, I am going through the same thing now. Comcast offered a package with basic cable for less than the price of internet alone. We'll hook him with the amazing package price and then jack it up after a year. Little do they know the cable box is still sitting in what they mailed it to me in, and I've never opened it. I even told the lady on the phone NOT to mail it to me, but sure as shit they did as well as a cable hookup kit they tried to charge me for.
 
the_servicer said:
Do people care? I have a browser on YouTube and Blu-ray player in my home.
Click to expand...
It not a DVR and min show are not online and some take up to 3, 4 week to show up if it every dose

Spidey329 said:
Why fight this? Sounds like the cable industry can easily make this work in their advantage.

Non-Leased Box Access Fee $9.99

Simple enough. That way they can make even more money because they don't have to supply or support the hardware! These executives fighting this clearly weren't thinking about the best possible way to bend their customer over.

This is the exact tactic that the satellite companies went to when they started allowing boxes to be purchased and used (such as TiVo, or used boxes). They changed the "lease" to an "access" fee and went about their business. Except those who leased at least had a claim if the box went tits up, those that brought their own were SOL.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the DVR are carp even TiVo box are not match to Google Fibre Software (SageTV)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top