Slashdot Mirror


FCC Extends Set-Top Box Deadline

Kadin2048 writes "The FCC today announced that it was once again rolling back the date (PDF!) for the eventual ban of "integrated set-top boxes" distributed and leased by cable companies to consumers, from 2006 to 2007. The move was a slight nod to the cable providers, who wanted the ban removed altogether, and a minor setback to the consumer electronics industry, who would have preferred that it stay on schedule. The ban would prevent the largest cable companies from integrating their digital content security devices with their navigation devices, allowing consumers to 'mix and match' the navigation or DVR set-top-box of their choice with a standard CableCARD security interface device. Currently, most digital cable set top boxes combine these two functions, meaning that digital cable customers who want DVR functionality must rent one from their cable company. By preventing the cable companies from leasing them to end-users, the FCC hopes to foster competition in the set-top-box market and allow more consumer choice. A statement from FCC Commissioner Johnathan Adelstein (PDF) was released simultaneously. The battle has been carefully watched by all the major players in the entertainment and electronics markets, including Microsoft, which had previously weighed in on the side of the consumer electronics camp (pro-deadline), but then later agreed with the one-year extension."

4 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Why ban them? by dreamt · · Score: 4, Informative

    Its a ban from cables boxes that are not CableCard (or whatever they want to call it) enabled. It (essentially) means that instead of the cable box "decrypting" the signal AND being a tuner, it must have a seperate entity that is responsible for each of those functions. This means that other standard equiment can handle the "tuner" portion. The "decrypting" part is plugged into the tuner, just as the "decrypting" part would be plugged into a TiVo, HDTV or other standard item.

  2. Re:altho.... by SmokeHalo · · Score: 5, Informative

    From TFA (CableCard link):

    Why is the FCC interested in CableCard? The FCC has been promoting the transition from analog programming to digital programming as it looks to free up the spectrum used by analog television broadcasts. CableCard is supposed to help speed up the transition by making it easier and cheaper for consumers to access digital programming.

    And there you have it. The FCC is looking to clean house in order to make room for more signals.

    --
    I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
  3. Re:altho.... by Detritus · · Score: 4, Informative
    The digital channels can be packed more tightly in the available broadcast bands without causing unacceptable levels of interference. This is because the new modulation techniques used for digital television are much more resistant to noise and interference. With digital television, you can put more stations in the same band or the same number of stations in a smaller band. Each station still uses 6 MHz, there is just less unused space between stations.

    The end result is that the FCC is going to recover spectrum by lowering the top end of the UHF band, as they have done several times in the past. That is how the 800 MHz cell phone bands were created. The original plan also would have recovered the VHF bands but that was killed by lobbying from the broadcasters.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  4. Re:Friggin Monopoly by sjwaste · · Score: 3, Informative

    If they do it your way, how do they cover their fixed costs? Do you know what fixed costs are?

    I'm almost positive the marginal cost in adding a new channel to your lineup is minimal; the majority of the subscription cost likely covers overhead. So they might be able to give you a la carte channel subscription, but there'll still need to be a heavy base service fee to do it. I might pay $65 a month for digital cable with the base channel package, and yeah they could probably charge me $40 for service plus a few dollars per channel. At that point, though, you might as well just pay the $65. The FCC might be able to help the consumer by opening up competition in various areas of the market as they're trying here, but they simply cannot alter your cable company's cost structure.

    You might argue that a cable company is a monopoly, which it isn't, but it is a pretty small oligarchy when you include the satellite providers (who, in many cases, arent any cheaper than cable). What half of slashdot seems to forget is that even in a market with few players, there are costs involved. Those costs will prevent you from paying by the channel without some sort of heavy base fee.