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.

Comments

I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cut the cord. Did it 4 years ago, never looked back. No more money for monopolies.

Re:I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[Anonymous Coward]

And who do you get your Internet access from?

Re:I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have multiple open APs near me. Internet is free, man.

Re: I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[bobmajdakjr]

yeah i would be more interested in a plan to eliminate cable /companies/.

Re:I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[Oswald McWeany]

I cut the cord... ... but had to duct-tape it back together again to get internet access.

Re: I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[Mr D from 63]

Its not even a plan to eliminate cable boxes. It is a plan to have an alternative and foster competition. Calling it a plan to eliminate them actually helps the cable companies make their case against it.

Re: I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[JackieBrown]

Time Warner in San Antonio refuses to allow you to subscribe to cable without renting their top box. On their site, it says you can, but both the local and 800 support said that you no longer can with the new pricing structures this year.

And dropping cable for the internet speeds I get would cost more than keeping cable - at least with the discounts they gave me after complaining and driving from TWC store after store.

Re:I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[TigerTime]

So basically theft? Considering that open APs are almost always for people INSIDE those businesses/homes. Not for random people to leach off of.

Re: I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[Anonymous Coward]

So tell them you just want the tiny black boxes, those are like $5.

Re:I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[known_coward_69]

NYC we have free city wifi in parts of the city. they put up one of those things by me but i can't reach it from my apartment yet. figure within the year they are going to put more up and i won't have to pay for time warner if i dont want to

Re:I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[David_Hart]

I cut the cord... ... but had to duct-tape it back together again to get internet access.

I'm not sure that duct tape is a good application for this... but it would work well for your cantenna project...

Re: I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Same in downtown Kansas City. We have a huge free wide area network provided by Sprint. I could reach from my old apartment.

Re:I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[unixisc]

So basically theft? Considering that open APs are almost always for people INSIDE those businesses/homes. Not for random people to leach off of.

Theft maybe, but insecure. If you pick up a packet of french fries that somebody bought from McD's and then discarded b'cos he was full, are you guilty of theft? Unhygienic, definitely, but theft?

Re: I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[unixisc]

Well, Comcast gave me the option of paying them $15/month for renting their box, or buying my own that is compatible w/ theirs. I checked, and bought my own - it worked!

Re: I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong analogy... Should you be able to walk into someone's house and rummage around simply because they left the door unlocked???

Re: I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[No Tears In The End]

Wrong analogy... Should you be able to walk into someone's house and rummage around simply because they left the door unlocked???

I think of it more like watching your neighbor's TV because they set it up near a window and left the curtains open.

LK

Re:I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[Coren22]

Get a AP or Wifi router with removable antennas and put a yagi antenna on it, configure it as a wireless client (rather than AP) and plug your computer into the wired port. That should allow you to access the city AP by pointing the yagi at the city's AP.

Or something like this should do what you need:

https://smile.amazon.com/Ubiqu...

Re: I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[torkus]

Imperfect analogies are imperfect.

Using someone else's open WiFi does have an impact on them. Though it's likely minimal, there are situations where you could definitely impact them - using significant bandwidth, downloading things that get them naughty MAFIAA letters, or other issues degrading their network. It's not completely zero impact like watching a TV though an open window, but it's not fully utilizing a resource and taking it away from it's owner.

However, it IS unauthorized access. The various 'digital tresspass' laws (most of which are a crock of ... erm stew) make this illegal. The owner may be less than tech savvy and *should* secure their network ... but anyone not given permission to use it, definitely don't belong on it.

Open NYC WiFi ... I'm going to guess that buried in the terms is (or eventually will be) some clause about not retransmitting, selling, porting, routing, etc. the wifi. Or maybe not, but if they put these near housing too many people will use it and they'll become useless.

Re: I have my own plan to eliminate cable boxen.

[torkus]

I believe they're still legally required to allow this is some odd, awkward situations (aka cablecard).

But it's intentionally cryptic, difficult, and works very poorly for the vast majority of cases.

Cable companies went encrypted digital and quickly locked most of the market out - and made built-in TV tuners essentially useless - as part of a huge (legally approved) scam to force people to rent set top boxes for $cheap per month...which quickly escalated to $rip-off per month.

While you're getting off my lawn, I remember when you could plug any TV in via splitter and get all the standard cable channels. The special ones - like HBO and playboy - still needed a box but you could easily watch the rest. This is a big part of how TVs proliferated so quickly and people bought one for every room.

apps so they can lock down and change outlet fees

[Joe_Dragon]

apps so they can lock down and change outlet fees.

Need to do two things

[gurps_npc]

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.

Re:Need to do two things

[Joe_Dragon]

no outlet or mirroring fees as well.

Re:Need to do two things

[Archangel Michael]

How about simply moving the Franchise agreements away from the last mile, and let consumers choose what service / company provides what they want/need?

We wouldn't need "regulators" to "regulate" that which should be free and open competition, rather than creating mroe regulations to fix what regulations (Franchise agreements) have already broken. The answer isn't more regulation, it is moving the problem so that regulation isn't required at all.

The problem is last mile. Currently there is no option for "last mile" other than government granted monopoly. FIX t that problem and all the other problems go a way. It isn't that hard to solve, just have to do it.

Re:Need to do two things

[Anonymous Coward]

And if I own the infrastructure up to the last mile, who is going to make me let other companies connect that last mile?

Re:Need to do two things

[mysidia]

The problem is last mile. Currently there is no option for "last mile" other than government granted monopoly.

Negating the government-granted monopoly means that companies won't build infrastructure in areas, because it's not profitable enough.
You have a "natural monopoly" called Cables in the ground, and the ability to put them there is massively expensive.

I think the only workable way is to keep the monopoly on the Cables, but require the 'feed' providers be separate companies and lease access to lines per end-user on Fair and Non-discriminatory terms.

Cable TV is not very amenable to that, since it's a broadcast medium..... you put a signal on the wire, and all subscribers receive it.

You would need changes to the cabling system and new ways and protocols of communicating over them.

Re:Need to do two things

[Archangel Michael]

Who "owns" the roads everyone drives on?
Who "owns" the right of way leased by CableCo?
Who "owns" public access rights?

Your problem is that you're still locked into the "Franchise Agreements" of years past, when they are no longer suitable for use in modern infrastructure.

Local Municipalities can build out the Fiber Plant, and bring everything back to a COLO facility where ... the competition for the customer happens. The last mile, is owned by the citizens via their local government.

Re:Need to do two things

[MachineShedFred]

#1 just guarantees that the cable companies will come up with some unnecessary horseshit compatibility-breaking change to their systems every 2 years in order to keep rent-seeking. And, you'll be stuck with the old piece of shit set-top box that's useless and have to dispose of it yourself. Win / win.

Re:Need to do two things

[Anonymous Coward]

Now only if there was a way of delivering switched packet data services over coaxial cable, so that you could route individual packets to the proper destinations. And, of course, some way of delivering video through that same packeted data stream. And, once you got that working, if we could come up with some kind of multiple-listener data broadcast protocol - we can call it "multicast" for short - then you could even cut down on bandwidth usage by not having duplicated data streams on the network for everyone watching the same thing!

Re:Need to do two things

[Curunir_wolf]

Tuning adapters suck.

Re:Need to do two things

[tattood]

Local Municipalities can build out the Fiber Plant, and bring everything back to a COLO facility where ... the competition for the customer happens. The last mile, is owned by the citizens via their local government.

The problem is, this has been tried and failed. The telecom companies and lobbyists are fighting to prevent this from being done for fear of losing their monopoly status.

Re:Need to do two things

[Archangel Michael]

Nobody has tried what I have been proposing. The scenario presented before was the Municipality owned not only the Transport, but also the broadcast / services being offered. IF they just built "fiber", and offered NO services, then there isn't a problem with public funding under cutting private services.

They can complain all they want, but without Franchise agreements, they have no customers.

That, and our court system is so screwed up with "entitlement" mentality that it actually isn't working any longer.

Re:Need to do two things

[DutchUncle]

You have to believe in the concept of "government" for this to work.

Re:Need to do two things

[Anonymous Coward]

Which many of the people that claim they don't believe in government tend to do every time they turn on their tap for water.

Re:Need to do two things

[Orgasmatron]

Negating the government-granted monopoly means that companies won't build infrastructure in areas, because it's not profitable enough.

Then why do I have two different competing fiber optic cable systems in my franchise-less region? I live a few miles outside of a small town in a semi-rural area and I've got three different fiber pedestals in my yard.

40 miles away in a bigger city, a second-tier cable provider has an exclusive franchise and people pay 50% more for lousy speeds over coax and shitty service. Both of the providers in my neighborhood have detailed plans and pre-approved financing to build their own plant right alongside the incumbent's cables in that city, should the city ever stop renewing that monopoly.

We aren't rich, and we don't have magic dirt that is unusually easy to lay fiber in.

Re:Need to do two things

[Archangel Michael]

There are very few things that government does that actually work right. Infrastructure is one, given the ability to actually take taxes that are supposed to go to it, and apply it there, without politicians taking the money and misappropriating it. ;)

Re:Need to do two things

[wolrahnaes]

Tuning adapters suck.

Tuning adapters suck for the same reason CableCard as a whole kinda sucked. Because the cable industry as a whole wanted them to suck. Ever notice how their own boxes never had the same problems, even during the time they were forced to use the same CableCard interfaces? Or how variable the support was between providers, with some providers happily shipping cards to consumers and offering self-service interfaces to activate them where others would insist on a truck roll and scheduled appointment (with standard cable company timing)?

Look at the same concept as implemented in Europe. Over-the-air, cable, and satellite television all use variants of the DVB standard. It even has an IPTV variant, though I'm not sure how widely it's deployed in that context. There's a standard interface for a service provider's encryption solution. Any consumer can use any compatible device with any television provider, and it works great.

For whatever reason (read: doesn't benefit the right companies) in this country we have a history of looking at problems Europe's already solved and saying "nope, we can make something much worse for consumers". See also GSM vs. CDMA and the fact that Verizon still insists to this day that they need to individually certify each device while the majority of cell carriers on the planet happily work all day with whatever phones happen to be compatible.

It's easy to be compatible if you want to be compatible. What these companies try to avoid saying outright is that they don't want to be compatible.

Re:Need to do two things

[taustin]

The FCC, in cooperation with the state's public utility commission.

Same as for telephone service for the last decade or two.

Re:Need to do two things

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they'll require you to "upgrade" your box every two years.

Re:Need to do two things

[unixisc]

Problem w/ that is - will all phone architectures be supported? Or will it just be iOS and Android, while users of Blackberry or Lumia, who until then would have been using WiFi, would now have no way to configure their internet connection. Unless the way one configures that is through a web browser

Re: Need to do two things

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you tolerate such corrupt officials? Are there no ways to root them out?

Re:Need to do two things

[Coren22]

Unless they have a well and deal with their own water needs.

Re: Need to do two things

[Archangel Michael]

We elect them. Just take a look at our top two Presidential Candidates.

Humans are evil, some more so than others. The good ones cannot compete with evil ones, because they have lines they will not cross, giving an unfair advantage to the evil ones who will win at any cost. It is also part of the reason I am a Libertarian, who views most government activity with disdainful eye.

Re:Need to do two things

[mysidia]

Then why do I have two different competing fiber optic cable systems in my franchise-less region?

I'm in an unincorporated area just outside a city, that's semi-rural but rapidly growing, and there's no fibre optic available period. It's not that the government
is stopping potential providers or granting monopolies; perhaps large providers choosing not to come in and build / compete
out of their own free will, because it doesn't make sense as a long term investment.

There are many possible reasons that what's happening in one particular small area..... I think your area is an "Outlier".
There always turn out to be some places that wind up with much better than others, with any number of possible causes.
Hell..... there are cities where you could get almost free connectivity thanks to a municipal fiber service, Or Google fiber.

You probably have a temporary situation, where there are two small start-up projects, or Niche providers trying to meet a specialized local need,
and neither has enough value or dominance of the local market yet to be worth acquiring or merging together.

There are likely distorting factors such as government incentives or grants for what they are doing, or they've forecasted growth in the area to justify building some.

We aren't rich, and we don't have magic dirt that is unusually easy to lay fiber in.

Installing fiber in an established city is expensive. It's often easier to lay fiber Per-Foot in a rural or unincorporated area, Because of fewer permitting requirements. That said, the downside, is you tend to need many more feet of fiber to get to many places, due to rural areas being populated less densely.

Putting it in cities is likely more profitable, because of the higher density: Assuming no competition, HOWEVER,
It is much more expensive per Foot, And With competition, it may not be sufficiently profitable to entice further building at
some point --- due to suppression of the necessary profit margin.

Re:Need to do two things

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh really? According to the American Society of Civil Engineers the country gets a D+ on infrastructure.

Re:Need to do two things

[lsatenstein]

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.

Why pay for them at all?

Why not copy Canada?

[Joe_Dragon]

Canada has where all companies have to offer Cable Boxes, and DVRs on a Full Purchase, Rent to Own, and Rent Only basis?

Re:Why not copy Canada?

[danbob999]

Canada is not a model.
Cable boxes are expensive here too. Especially DVRs. And they only work with one provider.

Re:Why not copy Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada is not a model. But it's Prime Minister is.

Re:Why not copy Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they Expensive and cheap crap, like the U.S.?

Re:Why not copy Canada?

[Archangel Michael]

Canada isn't an option, because the problem is in the Franchised last mile agreements. More regulations aren't really needed if you are able to solve the last mile problem. I have a solution, it is a responsible one, that frees up competition so that there is no government granted monopoly, on which to build additional government granted restrictions to competition. That isn't solving the problem that is building a whole enterprise on top the problem and calling the problem solved (it isn't).

It is really easy to solve, and doesn't require FCC (or any other three letter agency) to regulate anything.

Re:Why not copy Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

but the boxes ALL have terrible interfaces.

Just let an approved encryption pathway be allowed, and innovation on the guide /PVR etc etc side

Re:Why not copy Canada?

[danbob999]

And what is your magical solution?

Re:Why not copy Canada?

[Archangel Michael]

Municipal owned last mile infrastructure.

Last mile is brought back to a COLO Facility where the competition happens for the customer. Last mile is just a transport media not owned by anyone but the local municipality.

Car analogy, it is a road, and the competition for delivery happens at UPS, FedEx and US Mail. (rough analogy, not perfect)

Re:Why not copy Canada?

[denis-The-menace]

Rent to OWN?

I had a robbers cable box for 10+ years.
I wanted to just buy it.
They wanted to the same price as if it was new: $300+ !!!
WTF!!

Re:Why not copy Canada?

[danbob999]

It might work. But how do you implement it? You seize/nationalize the current infrastructure from telcos and cablecos? You lay a third cable and compete with them?
And why municipal? Why not another government?

Re:Why not copy Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

considering that most, if not all, of that infrastructure was paid for by the public, yes.
also, in some places, the phone companies have to let other competitors use their infrastructure, so no reason why that can't be applied to cablecos as well.

Good.jpg

[bigdady92]

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.

Re:Good.jpg

[tippen]

No way I want that embedded in the TV. The lifespan on a TV is too long to keep up with what's going on re: streaming and online services. Keep the TV as a relatively dumb monitor and keep the smarts on something external that can be updated more frequently at significantly less cost.

Re:Good.jpg

[amRadioHed]

Who said it needs to be in the TV? That's just an example. Use a Roku, Android TV, Apple TV, Amazon Fire, or Windows box if you prefer.

Re:Good.jpg

[Anonymous Coward]

It really doesn't matter as long as we can get it out of the cable companies hands and into the public arena where we can hack it to pieces and decrypt for free. Cheap consumer 'unlock' boxes should be the end goal here.

Re:Good.jpg

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been pretty happy with my 2015 model "smart tv"; I'm down to one, simple, correctly working OEM remote for everything. Yay. These things have multiple inputs; when some new fandangled thing comes along that the TV itself can't handle you can attach whatever you're trying to watch to an HDMI port. Nothing the FCC is doing will break that as far as I can tell.

Re:Good.jpg

[acoustix]

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.

So then your video service now requires Internet access to view "recorded" shows? No thanks. I still want my DVR to keep recorded shows locally stored at my house.

Re:Good.jpg

[tippen]

Who said it needs to be in the TV?

The post I was responding to in the first place :-)

Re:Good.jpg

[DutchUncle]

>> I still want my DVR to keep recorded shows locally stored at my house.

Yes, I even have an extra ESATA drive attached. Except when there was a problem with the FIOS somewhere, and I couldn't get TV, and figured I would watch a DVR recording instead, it WOULDN'T LET ME WATCH because it couldn't get the online approval that I was paid up. So it's not good enough that they encrypt the drive, and use a nonstandard disk format (which I know because it was a pain to recover when my old hard drive crashed), they need internet access for the DRM. It's not good enough that I paid for the service to record the shows, they have to check that I'm still allowed to watch them.

The only solution is to rewrite the regulations and require treating paying customers like CUSTOMERS rather than fleeced sheep. I expect hell to freeze first.

Re:Good.jpg

[amRadioHed]

He just said the tv could handle it, but pretty much anything else could handle it too. I'd be surprised if at least Android, iOS, and Windows apps weren't made.

Netflix

[BitZtream]

How is it that Netflix can secure it's content on Roku boxes, laptops, Xbox, ps4, Android and iOS devices ... But TimeWarnerCable can't ...

Perhaps TWC and friends don't know wtf they are doing and should get the fuck out of the business of pushing cable boxes on people.

Thats their excuse ... "We can't secure apps" ... Well other people can, so you've just admitted you're not qualified to be doing what you're doing.

Now piss off with your bullshit and lies.

Re:Netflix

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Re:Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Now piss off with your bullshit and lies.

You mean the kind of bullshit and lies like you 'working for a carrier'?

Re:Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!

cable is not over the air waves

[OrangeTide]

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.

Re: cable is not over the air waves

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't the cables have to run over public lands and government-controlled easements?

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[darkain]

They regulate the telephone networks as well. They regulate "communication", in all forms, as their name directly implies.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[DaHat]

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.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[OverlordQ]

> 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.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[boskone]

the cable companies are granted monopolies by the government, so therefore they get to receive more regulation to go with that

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[Waffle Iron]

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.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: cable is not over the air waves

[Anonymous Coward]

Cause there no other department that can handle government granted monopolies....

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[sjames]

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.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[Curunir_wolf]

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.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[Waffle Iron]

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.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[guruevi]

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.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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.)

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[Anubis IV]

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.

Re: cable is not over the air waves

[OrangeTide]

So do railroad tracks, doesn't necessarily mean the FCC should regulate freight either.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[OrangeTide]

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.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[OrangeTide]

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)

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[OrangeTide]

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.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[OrangeTide]

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.

Re: cable is not over the air waves

[zrobotics]

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/

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[Anonymous Coward]

Corruption happens wherever a sufficient number of humans are present.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[MercTech]

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.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[OrangeTide]

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.

Re:cable is not over the air waves

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:apps so they can lock down and change outlet fe

[Merk42]

If the current situation is boxes that are rented, and that can be updated remotely. Couldn't they do all that now anyway?

Wheeler is a nice surprise so far

[PeeAitchPee]

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.

Re:Wheeler is a nice surprise so far

[Joe_Dragon]

they will just pull something to keep trump out maybe this will slip by

Re:Wheeler is a nice surprise so far

[Anonymous Coward]

Who knows, maybe Hillary will have him "permanently" removed from his position?

Re:Wheeler is a nice surprise so far

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Some people just play to win. Their ideology is getting paid for winning, which makes them essentially mercenaries, but in sports we call them "free agents."

Re:Wheeler is a nice surprise so far

[Anonymous Coward]

If he is a paid representative and is doing their bidding then they have a plan already and he's following it. The only thing I can think of is another new version of AOL by the ISP's where they have access portals on TV's. To do that properly they need a shift in technology away from set top boxes to smart TV's (they really don't like supporting cable cards). If there is a long term plan to use him they will make him seem like the good guy at first then lock everything down when they get what they want. I'm still cautiously optimistic that Wheeler is doing good for the citizens and not part of some grand scheme.

Re:Wheeler is a nice surprise so far

[guruevi]

Really? He's pretty weak on net neutrality and wireless providers when push comes to shove. He's a politician, promises a lot but I have yet to see choice in providers, actual net neutrality enforced (TWC still throttles YouTube and Netflix), elimination of arbitrary data caps or overall costs go down.

Re:Wheeler is a nice surprise so far

[Anonymous Coward]

... getting paid for winning ...

I like the idea but it's difficult to translate to the real world. In most competitions, the chance of of an individual win is not high, so a 'pay per win' scheme makes paydays unreliable: Wheeler doesn't get a bonus for sacking staff, enforcing an industry standard, or for outsmarting the tel-co industry. Maybe Wheeler enjoys exercising his power over the industry more than filling his bank account.

Re:Wheeler is a nice surprise so far

[k6mfw]

There was an article (Wired or ?) where they interviewed Wheeler. One of the topics he talked about was back in the days when TV was almost all OTA, TV stations wanted to maintain control which prevented choices and squelched technical advancement that cable TV can offer. Wheeler continued that now it is the cable companies that want to maintain control, prevent choices, and squelch technical advancement (or something like that from what I remember in the article).

also all gateway fees must be part of the base rat

[Joe_Dragon]

also all gateway fees must be part of the base rate as well.

DVB-C

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:DVB-C

[DaHat]

In what respect?

Like DVB-C, (I assume) all digital video on cable today is done via QAM, usually statically assigned channels, other times switched-digital video (*shuddering*) which is more common for things like video on demand.

It's just that unlike the OTA broadcasters & receiver manufacturers who can all adhere to the pretty clear cut ATSC standard, cable providers (discounting satellite & FIOS) have zero incentive to make sure that the DVR you rented/purchased from them works on another cable system if you move, they just have to support CableCard which works ok if you've got a TiVo or USB, PCIe or Ethernet CableCard tuner... though depending on the mood of the cable company who can set the CCI flag of each individual channel (except usually of the 'must-carry' ones, which may end up with you not being able to view encrypted cable, even if you've got a setup tuner without something like Windows Media Center... which was free in Windows 7, cost you a bit (if you didn't grab it during the first year) in 8, and is no longer available as part of Windows 10.

Much hope is being held out for the SiliconDust effort to make a working DVR app... however they are a year behind schedule.

Re:DVB-C

[Curunir_wolf]

Much hope is being held out for the SiliconDust effort to make a working DVR app [kickstarter.com]... however they are a year behind schedule.

I still have a little bit of hope, too, but they seem to be going in the wrong direction right now. The did a "proof of concept" Android app, then dropped it and it still does very little. There is still no way to view "protected" content, which was the whole reason for using WMC in the first place. And, after having seen how Microsoft shafts everyone (including their customers) whenever they feel like it, they are STILL putting all their effort into Windows 10 "universal" apps and XBox.

So after a year late delivery anything very useful, I'm still left wonder what kind of device to look at using for SiliconDust apps, I just know I have no interest in an XBox or a Windows device.

Re:DVB-C

[Voyager529]

Windows Media Center... which was free in Windows 7, cost you a bit (if you didn't grab it during the first year) in 8, and is no longer available as part of Windows 10.

Much hope is being held out for the SiliconDust effort to make a working DVR app... however they are a year behind schedule.

http://www.windowscentral.com/...

It took a few tries to get it to work, but I can speak from personal firsthand experience that it works on Win10 the way you remember it, down to the guide data downloads.

With respect to other options, I'm hoping that the PlexDVR app allows for live streaming eventually, if SiliconDust doesn't get their life together.

Re:DVB-C

[Miamicanes]

IMHO, SiliconDust was INSANE for not just asking Microsoft to sell them the sourcecode and IP rights to Windows Media Center in exchange for equity in SD and an agreement to license PlayReady from Microsoft going forward. Microsoft would have had nothing to lose, since they've basically abandoned WMC anyway, and it would have enabled SiliconDust to have a version working under Windows 10 (with full DRM support) in a matter of months. And it would be an epic win for Microsoft, because you'd still have to buy a copy of Windows to use it.

Alternatively... they should have written the core DVR first as a collection of scriptable commandline apps with full DRM support for COPY_ONCE-flagged channels. The idea isn't that end users would record and play shows via commandline, but rather that someone ELSE could then write a front end using Java (or C, or Python, or whatever) that launches SD's Recorder or Player app & opens a network socket to it to query for things like "current position" and send commands like "pause", "skip 30 seconds", "new position: 00:24:13", etc.

As it stands, SiliconDust has basically spent a year writing a mediocre DVR app that does nothing the free Linux DVR apps can't ALREADY do better. They just don't seem to get it... without DRM support and the ability to record & play COPY_ONCE channels, their DVR app is POINTLESS and has no reason to even exist.

Re:DVB-C

[DaHat]

These days I've just been using the HDHomeRun app for live viewing on my Windows 10 desktop, and recordings on a virtualized Windows 8.1 instance on another machine for my personal use.

Media Center never had a high wife acceptance factor in my home, so I've mostly used it for myself to ensure that even when the household DVR is full, my programs will still be recorded.

Killing themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What About DSL Routers?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What About DSL Routers?

[Scarletdown]

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.

When I got set up with CenturyLink here, the option was to lease the modem or purchase it. The pricing was set up so that ownership was more than paid for after 13 months of service. I think June of this year was the 13 month point. And coincidentally, either this month or next month, Charter-Spectrum will be set up here at 60MB compared to CL's 12MB; which means I will be jumping ship, and can then actually resell the CL modem.

A shame AT&T is dicking you over by not allowing purchase of the equipment. Guess that might have to do with AT&T effectively being the telecom incumbent dinosaur that is sloooooooooow to change procedures and policies (this is how we have always done it, and we will crash this company into the sea before changing our ways); whereas the "younger" services are more flexible and open to change.

Re:What About DSL Routers?

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

Assuming you are in the US you can order a NetGear DM200-100NAS modem to replace the POS 2wire modem. Add your own Wireless Router and there you go. Works perfectly for me on my CenturyLink DSL connection.

Several other DSL modems are available from NewEgg.

Re:What About DSL Routers?

[Miamicanes]

What REALLY sucks is that the NVG589 actually HAS a place to stick a backup battery, but the modem's firmware shuts down literally EVERYTHING except the ability to make and receive voice phone calls (using U-verse's VoIP, of course) when it's on battery power. Disable WiFi? Maybe. But Jesus Christ, how much fucking power are they actually saving by powering down the goddamn ETHERNET PORTS? Especially considering that they STILL have to maintain the VDSL connection and router for VoIP to work?

Hell, if anything, I wish they'd give me two spare copper pairs and let me backfeed 48v into them to power enough of their VRAD back up to keep MY internet access working during an extended power outage (My generator gets fired up 10 minutes after the last radar-indicated rain band likely to hit for a few hours passes over... THEIR generator might not get fired up for a few days after a slow & sloppy tropical storm). Yeah, I know it's fantasy, but it really sucks being without service due to a power outage despite having abundant backup power of my own.

Now I have to update again?

[SoundGuyNoise]

I just got my CableCard in the mail!

Re:Now I have to update again?

[toonces33]

We went all-TiVo ourselves. A good amount of upfront cost, but that's fixed. The only thing we rent is one cablecard for the whole house.

Mandate all carried BROADCAST be clear QAM

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Mandate all carried BROADCAST be clear QAM

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Aside from the fact that a prior version of the FCC was convinced by the Cable co-s that everything needed to be encrypted to prevent piracy.. and thus, the
support for QAM went away.

Re:Mandate all carried BROADCAST be clear QAM

[colin_faber]

Interestingly the FCC, when they allowed big-cable to encrypt their QAM channels mandated that these companies provide, at no charge, access to IP based local TV service. I can tell you from recent experience with Comcast that this is absolutely not the case and Comcast with encrypted QAM still has not provided IP access to those channels. Comcast / NBC... Which political party do they support?

Not close to a consumer solution

[kgroombr]

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.

Re:Not close to a consumer solution

[SeaFox]

Honestly, I don't think the consumer is too interested in getting rid of the set top boxes

I can see you've never worked in customer support for a cableco.

Not having to deal with all the issues of that craptacular equipment would result in service that worked far more reliably for the consumer. As a bonus, people would have more control over what they use. The elderly could use a device that gives more simplified controls, for example. Mr Technofetish can have his voice-recognition Guide, the high-volume watcher can have his 4TB DVR, the traveling professional can just use mobile devices, etc.

Re:Not close to a consumer solution

[swb]

The thing is, nobody else wants those channels, either. They get turned on at the doggy daycare or in the day room at the insane asylum only.

But the reality is that the parent networks/companies want them and they will just charge you the same $120 a month for the 5 channels because their business model isn't based on shrinking their business and shuttering the expanded delivery footprint they enjoy now.

Re:Not close to a consumer solution

[crbowman]

I had cable TV + internet from Comcast. I only bought the cable TV because you had to in order to get the cheaper rate on internet. They charged me a monthly fee for a cable box and when I tried to actually watch something using it instead of streaming via the internet it was a horrible mess. It would reboot (a 5 minute process) or try to redownload the guide (a 20 minute process) and on the odd occasion it actually worked it was such a clunky painful ad filled experience that I never watched cable for the first 2 years I had service. Then TiVo had a sale where I could buy a reconditioned TiVO and lifetime service so I got a cable card and that experience has been unbelievably smooth. I mean literally: I couldn't believe it. I pay less now (the cable card is cheaper than the box) and watch a great deal more cable (which given I watched exactly zero before is a huge increase.) The experience now, even with commercials is way better. Being able to prune out all the channels on the guide that I didn't get in my package and prune out all the non HD versions of channels so I didn't see the same channel twice, once in HD and once in SD made the experience much much better. I don't understand why the Comcast cable box sucks so much. I'd actually spend money on the current setup. I'd cancel service if I could only use the Comcast provided cable box. I'm in favor of the proposal but what I really don't get is why the cable companies have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this. I literally want to put a fork in my eye when I got to my parents house and I'm forced to watchtheir cable. For lack of anything better to do when they go to bed.

bout darn time..

[Anonymous Coward]

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

It would be nice if the box got quality programs

[Streetlight]

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.

Looks like he gave in.

[Whumpsnatz]

"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...".

Re:Looks like he gave in.

[Curunir_wolf]

That's okay, because all those apps will be on ONE BOX. That's what I want. Right now I have a CableCard tuner that only works with all channels on Windows Media Center. If I want to watch Netflix or Hulu, I have to close that out (they dropped Netflix from WMC), and either switch to the FireTV or Chrome, and use one or more DIFFERENT remotes. It sucks right now.

Re:Looks like he gave in.

[KermodeBear]

There is no such thing as "free." The end user will be paying for those "free" applications via higher fees and taxes.

You mean like...

[Anonymous Coward]

Roku??

What do you say I continue to not get cable

[pecosdave]

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.

They will weasel their way and drag their feet

[Danathar]

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".

Re:They will weasel their way and drag their feet

[squiggleslash]

I wonder if it'd be in their best interests to do this this time, and use the FCC mandate as an excuse to work together and build a predictable, dependable, system.

I say this because cable is under a certain amount of pressure from Internet video services anyway. Even the TV providers are jumping in: I can get HBO on my Roku now, and the HBO I can get on my Roku would be significantly more useful than the version Dish Network offers me.

From their point of view, a chance to move away from clunky, confusing, service offerings, to an open system would make cable much more marketable in the Internet age.

Re:They will weasel their way and drag their feet

[SeaFox]

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.

That wouldn't be much of a change for Rokus in general in my experience. Their support staff like to blame any issue with the box connecting on your DNS settings for your Internet connection, which coincidentally cant be set on the device itself, so they refer your to your ISP for them to change your router settings to OpenDNS's, they insist this is the problem regardless of if you are having any issues on other devices (including other Rokus).

I got rid of my set top box.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I got rid of my set top box.

[toonces33]

It may well be mind-rot, but there is no shortage of people seeking to rot their minds for many hours at a time. Some of the heavy TV watchers remind me of stoners.

Re:apps so they can lock down and change outlet fe

[SeaFox]

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?

An "app" on what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like hell I'm putting anything from a cable company on my computer.

Re:An "app" on what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like hell I'm putting anything from a cable company on my computer.

Double that for my phone

What Savings?

[Junior Samples]

"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.

Re:It would be nice if the box got quality program

[SeaFox]

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.

Try the British model

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Try the British model

[Miamicanes]

That's how it used to be about 10 years ago in many parts of the US.

The main thing that killed it was higher speeds. The way it worked just wasn't scalable to VDSL:

* The ISP had to colocate HIS OWN DSLAM at each central office where he wanted to serve customers AND make his own backhaul arrangements.

* AT&T leased a pair of copper wires to the ISP... and getting them to actually do a truck roll and send out an outside lineman to troubleshoot problems almost required divine intervention. And 99.8% of the time, it was ultimately AT&T's fault... usually, old loading coils.

The problem is that with VDSL2 speeds of 50-100mbps, the distance limit isn't a couple of miles... it's about 500-1000 feet. There's no way on god's green earth that Mom & Pop ISPs can afford to put their own VRAD cabinets within a thousand feet of every customer... even if they could afford it, having THAT MANY refrigerator-sized boxes would be a major blight. One AT&T VRAD? Ugh, but necessary. A half-dozen VRADs in a line, each owned by a different ISP? Never, ever going to happen (or even be allowed to happen). And remember, each of those VRADs needs fiber, air conditioning (in Florida, at least, to keep the equipment from overheating or corroding from humidity), and backup power.

The only way shared last-mile service is practical with VDSL2 is if the company who owns the wires provides TCP/IP carriage between the customer and their central office (with a VRAD/DSLAM and lots of fiber along the way), then hands it off to the ISP *there*. Which, I believe, is the way it's done in Britain.

Re:apps so they can lock down and change outlet fe

[ausekilis]

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.