FCC Opens Market for Cable Boxes

fistfullast33l writes "The FCC rendered a decision today against a Comcast appeal that centers on integrated security features in set-top cable boxes. The decision comes at the end of a long standing feud between the FCC and cable companies over the matter. The result is that starting July 1st, cable boxes distributed by cable companies must not be tied directly to a cable provider via internal security features. This rule is viewed as the first step in creating a market for set-top cable boxes. Comcast does have the right to appeal and has said they will do so. From the article: 'Several major consumer electronics manufacturers have argued that if set-top boxes weren't directly linked to the provision of cable service, they could enter the set-top market. Consumers could get a cable card from their service provider that they could insert into a set-top box purchased at a consumer electronics store. The cards would ensure that consumers could only access channels that they paid for.'"

Comments

Re:What about sattalite?

[Quarters]

It's not a double standard at all. Cable companies and Telco's operate under the idea of regional monopolies. Local/State governments give providers monopolistic contracts to service an area to entice the provider to come in and create the necessary infrastructure. I can't get anything other Insight Cable where I live. The same is true, but with different providers, for the majority of the country. The set-top box with DVR that Insight offers is F'ing abysmal. It's about as programmable as a VCR. Other than an over priced Series 3 TiVO with an extra monthly charge I have *no* choice in how I can receive and record Insight's digital/HD programming. Due to Insight's approved local monopoly I am stuck with their crappy system if I want to subscribe to their service.

Satellite services don't operate under the same monopoly based business model. Space is open to whomever has the cash to toss a ton of satellites up there and start providing signal. I can freely choose from Sirius or XM for my radio and Dish or DirecTV for my video. If I don't like the channel lineup or available hardware for one I can always sign up with the other service.

No different than AT&T decision...

[Constantin]

... many years ago, it was illegal per AT&T to attach anything but AT&T-approved equipment at home or in a business alike to their network. Eventually, the anti-trust folk, PBX equipment vendors, etc. broke up that racket, IIRC. At the time, AT&T made dire predictions about network reliability, etc. if "non-approved" devices were attached to it. In the end, it was clearly a rear-guard action designed to maximize the lease-money that AT&T was deriving from equipment rentals. This Comcast rethoric is no different, they want to lease a $30 cable box for $4 month ad infinitum.

So, I would very much welcome a requirement to open up the the consumer choices with regard to cable boxes. Ideally, someone at the FCC will have the foresight to look to the EU or other places that have already gone through the trouble of designing a secure option and require an "open" standard instead of allowing content providers to reinvent the wheel yet again to create a NA-only product. While cable-boxes are definitely not as portable as let's say cell-phones (and hence will not derive as much value from being interoperable), economies of scale definitely apply in this business and the more competition, the better for the consumer.

Plus, interoperable product ensures that if cable content providers ever get competition, that cable boxes don't get discarded simply because provider X has a different encryption scheme than vendor Y. Besides the unnecessary lock-in at the set-box level, I would also like to see a requirement by the Feds to allow consumers and content providers to chose their packages à la carte (i.e. disallow bundling requirements). This is the only means of breaking the oligopoly of the content providers and to restore some semblance of consumer choice to the market.