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.
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.
And who do you get your Internet access from?
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.
I have multiple open APs near me. Internet is free, man.
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
yeah i would be more interested in a plan to eliminate cable /companies/.
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.
I cut the cord... ... but had to duct-tape it back together again to get internet access.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
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.
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.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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.
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...".
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.
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 $20 bucks a month. It will be called "Internet HD TV access charge".
So basically theft? Considering that open APs are almost always for people INSIDE those businesses/homes. Not for random people to leach off of.
If the current situation is boxes that are rented, and that can be updated remotely. Couldn't they do all that now anyway?
Yes, and that's one of the bullshit fees cable companies charges that needs to go away.
Back in the cable-ready-tv analog cable days, you paid for the service and it covered your whole house.
The excuse for adding these fees was the cost and upkeep of the equipment -- but it was really just a money grab.
There's no reason you should have to pay per-TV for service with software apps.
There might be an argument for per USER fees, but if I live alone and have two TVs (one in the bedroom and one in the living room), should I have to pay extra even though I can only watch one TV at a time?
Do you pay for each phone you have in your house anymore?
Does the water company charge for each bathroom in your home?
The government has a legitimate interest in regulating monopolies
That's one theory, but it's easily disproven by the reality of regulatory capture. Any system that depends on incorruptible humans is unworkable, in reality.
a large (12") government owned conduit
Conduit, yes, but see above. Markets work wherever they're allowed. Corruption happens wherever government-controlled monopolies are allowed.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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
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.
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.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Now piss off with your bullshit and lies.
You mean the kind of bullshit and lies like you 'working for a carrier'?
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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?
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!
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.
It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!
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.
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/
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
-You can cry, but you'll still die. There'll be no tears in the end.
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.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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.
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...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
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.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
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
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