Slashdot Mirror
FCC Chief To Unveil Revised Plan To Eliminate Cable Boxes (fortune.com)
The top U.S. communications regulator plans to unveil a revised plan to allow about 100 million pay TV subscribers to replace expensive set-top boxes with less-costly apps that provide access to television and video programs, Fortune reports. From the report: Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler proposed in January opening the $20 billion cable and satellite TV set-top box market to new competitors and allow consumers to access multiple content providers from a single app or device. The plan, aimed at breaking the cable industry's long grip on the lucrative pay TV market and lowering prices for consumers, drew fierce opposition from TV and content providers, including AT&T, Comcast and Twenty-First Century Fox. The FCC has said Americans spend $20 billion a year to lease pay-TV boxes, or an average of $231 annually. Set-top box rental fees have jumped 185 percent since 1994, while the cost of TVs, computers and mobile phones has dropped 90 percent, the FCC has estimated. Update: 09/08 19:18 GMT by M :Tom Wheeler has just published the proposed laws at LATimes.
Cut the cord. Did it 4 years ago, never looked back. No more money for monopolies.
apps so they can lock down and change outlet fees.
1) Declare that no set top box can be rented more than 2 years - automatically converting them "rent to own".
2) Require all cable companies to have an App Market - charging no more than 30% / $1 (which ever is higher) to the app maker selling apps. These apps would be allowed to duplicate/replace any current function of the set top box, including programming DVR's, showing a channel guide, renting/selling movies, or accessing the internet or other provider services.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Canada has where all companies have to offer Cable Boxes, and DVRs on a Full Purchase, Rent to Own, and Rent Only basis?
Get rid of the ridiculous cable boxes. The TV's we have now are a bajillion times more powerful than the ridiculous set top boxes. Why in the world would we need a DVR with the ability to stream shows. If the networks were smart they would just flag shows that people want to watch and when they finally want to view them start the stream.
That would require some engineering and know how to do. This would cost money, which of course, the cable companies don't want to spend.
Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
If the current situation is boxes that are rented, and that can be updated remotely. Couldn't they do all that now anyway?
Don't the cables have to run over public lands and government-controlled easements?
Cautiously optimistic about this guy, between this, Net Neutrality, and a few other issues. Hard to believe he was a career Cable TV industry guy with the decisions he's been making for the consumer's benefit. Still expecting a bunch of arrows to start shooting out of the walls Indiana Jones-style at some point, though.
also all gateway fees must be part of the base rate as well.
Don't you have some something like DVB-C in the US? You could just adopt it, but that would be too easy, wouldn't it?
Like the ad industry always goes against the most mundane of reforms these cable companies are going to kill themselves by their steadfast refusal to improve.
The only answer really is to remove the option of using nonstandard delivery methods and require that any pay tv product be open to industry standards like QAM. In this way just as people are stupid enough to rent cable modems there will still be the occasional sucker willing to pay $10/month for a box that's only worth $50, but the more savvy customers won't be required to simply reject the entire industry.
It's the Federal Communication Commission, not the Federal Wireless Commission. They have authority over any and all public communication, one or two way.
They have been around and regulating wireline communication since before you were born.
Good for the dwindling cable TV customers.
When can I purchase a DSL modem instead of paying AT&T $7.00 per month for equipment rental? I tried to purchase it but they refused. They have even raised the prices for "renting" this increasingly outdated VDSL modem. There is no UPS involved, just a 2Wire router.
They regulate the telephone networks as well. They regulate "communication", in all forms, as their name directly implies.
That seems a good bit broad of a explanation of their power.
If you will excuse me though, I'm going to go upstairs and see what my son wants for lunch... a form of communication which is not (currently) regulated by the FCC.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I just got my CableCard in the mail!
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
> If a cable company puts some wire down, they ought to be able to do whatever they want with it as it does not interfere with other devices.
Because the cable company didn't 'put some wire down', the cable companies took billions in subsidies from the US Govt and did fuck all.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
the cable companies are granted monopolies by the government, so therefore they get to receive more regulation to go with that
If a cable company puts some wire down, they ought to be able to do whatever they want
No they shouldn't. Most cable companies are monopolies, either granted by the municipality, or a de-facto monopoly because no other company is going to incur the sunk cost of installing cable into what would then become a low-profit competitive market. The government has a legitimate interest in regulating monopolies, although it should probably be done through the FTC rather than the FCC.
The real solution is the get rid of the monopolies. When streets are trenched, a large (12") government owned conduit should be installed, and multiple fibers should be pre-installed inside it. These fibers can then be leased or sold to multiple competing companies, and any bonded company should be able to run additional cables through the conduit. This would drastically cut the cost of entering the market.
Our current system, of requiring each company to retrench, is as silly as requiring FedEx, UPS, etc to each build their own roads into each neighborhood.
We once had clear QAM for "local" stations and could watch them without a box. The FCC should mandate that all carried stations that have "local" transmitters be carried in clear QAM. Most TVs that have ATSC tuners (all in my experience) also have QAM tuners.
If a cable company puts some wire down, they ought to be able to do whatever they want with it as it does not interfere with other devices.
Before we implement your corporate utopia, first we need to rescind all property easements.
Then the cable companies can negotiate with each individual land owner to determine an appropriate agreed rental fee for allowing those wires in each parcel of property. If they can't come to an agreement with any particular owner, they can make deals with other land owners and re-route their cables.
Once all of that is complete, then they can completely deregulate cable.
No, the problem isn't TWC can't, it is that they don't want to. They have a cushy Government granted Monopoly (franchise agreement) and have pushed for all sorts of anti-competitive regulations on top of it.
Because we haven't broken the Franchise Agreement problem, we aren't really solving anything by adding regulations on top of regulations to fix the problems caused by regulations (Franchise agreements) caused. The foundation is crumbling, and you're worried about the view out your window.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Honestly, I don't think the consumer is too interested in getting rid of the set top boxes, they are more interested in ala-carte TV. I got rid of my cable and satellite because I got tired of paying $120 a month for a bunch of crap to get the five channels I wanted.
So why does the FCC get to regulate it? The original purpose of the FCC was to deal with the management and regulation of a common public resources, the airwaves. If a cable company puts some wire down, they ought to be able to do whatever they want with it as it does not interfere with other devices. The FCC has become some kind of consumer advocacy group which is way outside of their original charter.
Oh goodness, if ONLY, if ONLY, Congress could UPDATE laws and regulations. But sadly, they can't. Wait a second, they can?
Oh never mind them.
Because here is their current charter:
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the “Federal Communications Commission”, which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.
(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title I, 1, 48 Stat. 1064; May 20, 1937, ch. 229, 1, 50 Stat. 189; Pub. L. 104–104, title I, 104, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 86.)
So what's the problem? What objection do you have, since your premise is faulty just in terms of "originalism" let alone the actual facts, which was that the Federal Radio Commission and the telephone-managing aspects of the Interstate Commerce Commission were merged.
Cause there no other department that can handle government granted monopolies....
It's like unemployment ins..
rather,, should unemployment ins.. be run like this??
seriously, on a different note, I have HBO, SHOWTIME, Stars, etc... and it seems that 80% of the time, three is NOTING ON THE TV..
like Bruce Springsteen, 57 channels and nothing on..
What are we really paying for??
ALl-la-carte is what??
shrug..
ttyl
A cable box might be worth owning if what went into the box for viewing were of high quality. I'd guess 90% or more of it is junk. We should be able to subscribe to just those 10 to 15 channels we want at a reasonable price. Likely the vast majority of channels would go away, particularly those with commercials.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
"pay-TV providers will be required to provide apps – free of charge– that consumers can download to the device of their choosing". So the cable companies will still have a stranglehold - I don't see independent developers being allowed to create the apps. I can see it now. "Well, yeah, the app really sucks, but we have this nifty box that works so much better, and you'll just have to pay a little bit each month...".
Roku??
and continue to use Netflix and Amazon, and if I feel like it step up to using Hulu Plus. All three are still cheaper each month (or year) than cable. If I decide to subscribe to a single web channel, and I have one, it's going to take a lot of channels, plus Netflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon Prime together to catch up to the cost of cable. Honestly I don't care about most of the channels cable has.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Just look at the cable card debacle. They purposely underfunded and under engineered support for third party devices with their cable cards. What do you think will happen with this? I guarantee you there will be "delays" and it will be a bear getting anybody to help you if your app on Roku for comcast does not work right. Call me cynical, but do you think they will WILLINGLY give up that cable box revenue stream? Even after they are forced to do so I'd bet they will "roll" the loss of those cable boxes right back into your cable bill. Maybe not all at first, a buck here, a buck there and 5 years later everybody is paying an additional $20 bucks a month. It will be called "Internet HD TV access charge".
By not subscribing to cable TV.
The small handful of decent content on there inst worth 80 bucks a month. The rest is fucking mind rot.
Content needs to be freed from network providers.
Nationalize the network fabric, price it as a utility, use right-of-way to provide fair cost utility style access.
Let local network transport providers compete on an open market, letting them sell bundled content if they wish.
Let content providers partner with transport providers if they wish, or sell ad-hoc directly to end users, or partner with media companies to sell bundles.
If the current situation is boxes that are rented, and that can be updated remotely. Couldn't they do all that now anyway?
Yes, and that's one of the bullshit fees cable companies charges that needs to go away.
Back in the cable-ready-tv analog cable days, you paid for the service and it covered your whole house.
The excuse for adding these fees was the cost and upkeep of the equipment -- but it was really just a money grab.
There's no reason you should have to pay per-TV for service with software apps.
There might be an argument for per USER fees, but if I live alone and have two TVs (one in the bedroom and one in the living room), should I have to pay extra even though I can only watch one TV at a time?
Do you pay for each phone you have in your house anymore?
Does the water company charge for each bathroom in your home?
The government has a legitimate interest in regulating monopolies
That's one theory, but it's easily disproven by the reality of regulatory capture. Any system that depends on incorruptible humans is unworkable, in reality.
a large (12") government owned conduit
Conduit, yes, but see above. Markets work wherever they're allowed. Corruption happens wherever government-controlled monopolies are allowed.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Nice try, but it's a complete fantasy. Never going to happen. You think they have the staff to negotiate with every landowner over a piddly 5 or 10 ft easement in the suburban sprawl and ex-urban wastelands? The only reason they agreed to run the cable in those tract home neighbors up to the boxes is because they got the easement in the first place.
More likely they'll just tell you to go to hell and have a nice day.
They put the wire in the ground (or more likely on the poles) based on a granted monopoly so they could be assured of a return on their investment. That grant has/had a considerable value that has more than paid for the cabling by now. They rely on a public easement to allow their cables to exist at all. No easement and they're forced to negotiate with each and every property owner individually.
The cost of that public grant of passage through the easment is that the public has a right to regulate what they do with the cables.
If they would care to (and manage to do it), they may try negotiating with each and every property owner with nothing to help them assure ROI and then they can do whatever they want with those cables. But they better be careful not to piss off any of those land owners or their considerable investment might become worthless over night.
Before we implement your corporate utopia, first we need to rescind all property easements.
That's insane - you're not thinking making this comment. Can you imagine how long your power would be out after a storm if the power company had to negotiate with EVERY property owner when coming to repair the lines? You fill in a stormwater ditch because your neighbor won't pay for an easement to keep it open? Some deeds even include easements because their neighbors' driveways run through the property.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Like hell I'm putting anything from a cable company on my computer.
Now piss off with your bullshit and lies.
You mean the kind of bullshit and lies like you 'working for a carrier'?
You correctly figured out that the precondition for a true "free market" is not feasible. So the cable companies and other utilities will remain regulated.
"pay-TV providers will be required to provide apps – free of charge– that consumers can download to the device of their choosing"
Sounds like he's proposing to replace Cable TV with IPTV. The $9.95 set top box rental gets replaced with $59.95 monthly Internet service in addition to the Video Services subscription. I also have to buy a Smart TV or a Smart Box that is capable of running "The Application".
Sorry, but I don't see the savings. The digital video services delivered over IP will cost the same as digital video services delivered over QAM. Now I have to pay for broadband internet to get HDTV streaming cable content.
A cable box might be worth owning if what went into the box for viewing were of high quality. I'd guess 90% or more of it is junk.
I'm getting flashbacks of the government subsidized ATSC tuner boxes.
Phone lines are owned by a private company but as they have a monopoly they are required to sell wholesale access to any isp. The line provider has to trade independently of the isp. There are now 2 or maybe 3 isp's who provide to over IP via multicast and the youview platform. There is also one cable and one satalight supplier but they don't have to wholesale their service.
Unfortunately everyone owned there box as they are effectively given away for free when you sign up. This is good unless it fails when you have to spend £200 to replace the box as you own it.
Because the government (in recent times through the FCC but also a bunch of local, state and other federal offices) pays/paid for the deployment of cables. These cable companies are getting BILLIONS to deploy "high speed internet", regulations paid for a minimum of 10Mbps to be completed several years ago, then the FCC appointed yet another media executive (Wheeler used to be one too BTW) and rolled back their requirements.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I can think of a way to justify it, but everyone is going to hate my sick, twisted perversion. Wanna hear?
Oh, you do?! Good!
It's "necessary and proper" for the FCC to regulate competitors of services which use the airwaves, as part of their responsibility to regulate the airwaves. (Even if those competitors don't use airwaves or aren't interstate!) Your wired ISP activities have an effect on the wireless services market!
(Sorry, but you cannot possibly describe any activity, which I can't make into interstate commerce. Everything is interstate commerce. Everything.)
Let me add some emphasis to your question, since it's really two questions in one, both of which are worth addressing...
why does the FCC get to regulate it?
Because Congress transferred the Interstate Commerce Commission's telecommunications authority to the FCC when they abolished the ICC. That's why they're the ones doing the regulating. And while it's true that their original mandate only applied to the airwaves, the ICC was abolished the same year that the FCC was founded--1934--so for all intents and purposes the FCC had the authority to regulate wires right from the start.
why does the FCC get to regulate it?
Because your assertion that a cable company "ought to be able to do whatever they want with [a wire] as it does not interfere with other devices" is woefully misguided. For one, cable companies don't just "put some wires down"; they rely on one of our most precious public resources: access to public property. They oftentimes don't own the easement or utility pole that their line runs through or across, so it's to be expected that their access would be subject to some form of regulation.
Moreover, there are decades of precedent supporting the FCC's authority to impose regulations of exactly this sort. The best and most relevant example would probably be what happened when the Carterfone entered the scene in the late 1960s. At the time, AT&T was requiring that all customers rent their handsets from them and prohibited their customers from connecting devices made by anyone else. The FCC eventually ruled that AT&T was required to permit all lawful devices on its network, which paved the way not just for competing handsets, but also for new classes of devices such as answering machines.
In much the same way that Ma Bell was protecting its monopoly by tying their service to mandatory devices that needn't be mandatory, so too are cable companies doing the same thing today with the local monopolies that they've managed to carve out for themselves. The FCC has already established its authority to regulate in this area, and they have every reason to exercise it here, given the consumer-hostile situation that we currently all find ourselves in. The FCC has had difficulty establishing its authority to attack the root of the problem (i.e. the state laws and exclusivity agreements that lock out competition), but that doesn't mean they can't go after the symptoms that fall under their jurisdiction, which is exactly what they're doing.
So do railroad tracks, doesn't necessarily mean the FCC should regulate freight either.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Any communication, in the most general sense, so are you suggesting that they regulate verbal speech?
No, really you cannot use the name of an organization to define an appropriate scope. You can look at the charter for the organization and see how it has expanded in scope through the years though.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The monopolies have historically been granted by local governments, not federal government. It's treated as a utility service in most parts of the US.
Until about 15 years ago, anyone could start their own cable company because the leasing of utility poles was still open. AT&T, Comcast, and others control most of the utility space even though those poles themselves are owned by various power companies. (done through a maze of agreements)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
or a de-facto monopoly because no other company is going to incur the sunk cost of installing cable into what would then become a low-profit competitive market
That statement is total bullshit. I can't imagine how you could make a convincing argument to support that statement.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
they rely on one of our most precious public resources: access to public property.
they are hung from utility poles, owned by the power company but provided through easements throughout jurisdictions in the US. The telephone and power companies are leasing access to these poles so that cable companies by use those lines. Until fairly recently that access was wide open to anyone willing to draw up an agreement with a power company.
We already regulate those poles, because they are there for power lines and telephone lines. But the poles are under utilized, and letting anyone lay wires on them for a fee helps pay for maintaining that infrastructure. There is room on there for 10 cable companies in every town.
so while your post may have made some points, it is still full of holes.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!
Actually, rail is heavily regulated. So while the FCC doesn't regulate it, the Dot is happily telling them how their track must be constructed and applying safety standards to rolling stock and engines. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Railroad_Administration/
Do you pay for each phone you have in your house anymore?
Yes, I do. We cut the landline years ago, cell phones only these days.
Does the water company charge for each bathroom in your home?
Depends on how much crap you have in your family. Of course they charge per flush, as that is total water used. This analogy doesn't quite hold because only Comcast is trying to treat electrons like water or gas, and you don't really need any "special equipment" to convert said water or gas into something usable. There's no adapter you need to rent to convert the sludge in your water pipes to drinkable water, no adapter to convert gas into something flammable for cooking. With our transition to HDTV in a digital format, we introduced a need for equipment to convert the signal into something usable. Of course, the big cable companies saw it as another way to leech money from the peasants because now "this box is required." That's exactly why I like Mr. Wheeler, he sees this nonsense for what it is, and is trying to stop some of the insanity.
Corruption happens wherever a sufficient number of humans are present.
The Federal Communication Commission sets regulations for all public communications. If you do a proprietary wire system for your own proprietary use and run the wires through locations you own yourself; no, the FCC would not be involved. If you run your wires on public utility poles; the FCC regulates. Yep, there is a governmental oversight of companies using public hardware like underground utility trunks and overhead lines.
NRRPT/RCT
they are hung from utility poles, owned by the power company but provided through easements throughout jurisdictions in the US. The telephone and power companies are leasing access to these poles so that cable companies by use those lines. Until fairly recently that access was wide open to anyone willing to draw up an agreement with a power company.
Really, what makes you say that? What law changed? (Though I will quibble on the power company bit, they don't always own the poles, it can be a diversity of options that do.). If it wasn't a law, then what are you attributing it to?
We already regulate those poles, because they are there for power lines and telephone lines. But the poles are under utilized, and letting anyone lay wires on them for a fee helps pay for maintaining that infrastructure. There is room on there for 10 cable companies in every town.
so while your post may have made some points, it is still full of holes.
Physical room? Perhaps, perhaps not, but actual marketing desirability? Nope. Why not? Because even since the 1996 Telecommunicatons Act, which contrary to your statements, required the lifting of any franchise agreements, it still hasn't happened. If anything, it's gone the opposite way in terms of diversity in the market. Apparently it just isn't going to happen.
Which is why we need other safeguards and reviews.
You're assumption is wrong, it's not a new law. It's that the agreements have been arranged for exclusive access. In short, it's a monopoly now. It wasn't a monopoly 20 years ago (or even 10 years ago)
It's too late now, but the assertion that there was never room for second carriers has been this myth that has been difficult to overcome.
As for a solution, it would have to come out of the legislature now.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You're assumption is wrong, it's not a new law. It's that the agreements have been arranged for exclusive access.
I didn't assume anything, I asked if it was a law, or if it was not a law, what you did attribute it to, which seems to be a claim of some agreement that arranges for exclusive access.
Well, that'll be a problem, since exclusive franchise agreements have been prohibited to local governments since the 1992 Cable Competition Act.
In short, it's a monopoly now. It wasn't a monopoly 20 years ago (or even 10 years ago)
It's too late now, but the assertion that there was never room for second carriers has been this myth that has been difficult to overcome.
As for a solution, it would have to come out of the legislature now.
Actually, it was about 25 years ago that there was a debate going on about this exact issue(hence the provisions of the law), and there WERE actual exclusive franchise clauses and agreements. But they were prohibited.
Sorry, but your factual awareness seems to be off with the actual history.
I'm going to suggest you get a real understanding of events, rather than whatever you think you know, since you seem consistently in error.