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

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

[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

[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.

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: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: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

[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: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?