Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

FCC Delays Vote on Proposal to Make Subscription TV Available on Any Set-Top Box via Apps

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,199
38,989



apple_tv_square-250x250.jpg
An FCC vote on a controversial proposal that would de-couple cable subscriptions from cable set-top boxes was today delayed as the Commission aims to work out "remaining technical and legal issues," the FCC said in a statement. [PDF]
"It's time for consumers to say goodbye to costly set-top boxes. It's time for more ways to watch and more lower-cost options. That's why we have been working to update our policies under Section 629 of the Communications Act in order to foster a competitive market for these devices. We have made tremendous progress - and we share the goal of creating a more innovative and inexpensive market for these consumer devices. We are still working to resolve the remaining technical and legal issues and we are committed to unlocking the set-top box for consumers across this country."
Click to expand...
Introduced in January by United States Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler, the proposal initially called for content providers to allow cable and satellite subscribers to access and watch cable content on any set-top box of their choosing, including the Apple TV, rather than being forced to lease a set-top box provided by cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable.

Cable companies want to have control over content and how and where it's displayed, so the FCC unsurprisingly met a lot of resistance over the proposal.

Major changes to the measure were announced in early September in response to pushback from cable companies, and the revised version requires cable providers to develop apps featuring access to all of their programming -- live and on-demand -- for all major platforms including iOS, Android, Windows, and Roku.

Providers are also required to provide open access to their content catalogs for universal search purposes, but the revised measure is much less ambitious and more restrictive than the original proposal, but more agreeable to content providers.

With the first version of the proposal, companies like Apple could have built a full television-viewing interface around content provided by cable companies rather than simply offering content through a cable-branded app.

According to the FCC, the proposal will now go on the Commissions "circulation list" and will "remain under consideration."

Article Link: FCC Delays Vote on Proposal to Make Subscription TV Available on Any Set-Top Box via Apps
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2016/09/29/fcc-delays-vote-on-set-top-box-proposal/
This delay should have occurred last year.

Wonder what is causing the hang up...

The tech is advancing extremely slow for the possible feature set this is predicted to have.

I guess more is better, but "right now" is best; otherwise we are waiting to buy for something better that is always "right around the corner."

Put out what is ready now, and put out future tech as soon as it is ready; stop holding back versions that are ready today. I understand the logic I just don't think it's a good philosophy.

But what do I know, lol, I don't own or run a multi-national billion dollar company haha.



USVet
 
I picked up a new Apple TV. While I liked the old one more, it was stuck on OS 7.2.1, a feature like this finally coming to my new Apple TV is going to make that regret go away.

Sling comes close though.
 
Last edited:
MacRumors said:
According to the FCC, the proposal will now go on the Commissions "circulation list" and will "remain under consideration."
Click to expand...

In other words, someone got paid.

They need to also get around this crap "can't stream NFL games because the NFL says so" BS. These boxes need to be just another option, and the Internet just another alternative to OTA Antenna, Cable, and Satellite. If the local station is airing a game, the local station has an app that streams the content, and the user of said app, with paid subscription, is geographically in the local broadcast area? There is ZERO reason to prevent that person from watching the game live. ESPECIALLY since local games are often blacked out on the paid subscription apps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dekema2, Ghost31, ironpony and 10 others
The goalposts will just move. The unwanted stuff will now become part of the individual channel you bought to escape it. The prices of those individual channels will just rise to compensate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bubba Satori
Most people are still going to want a stb, as streaming through an ATV or Roku may not be that good, if you have slow internet speed. Even with a fast speed, the quality will not be as good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil in ocala
Cable TV and "packages of channels" is a dinosaur that needs to die.
[doublepost=1475171729][/doublepost]
69Mustang said:
I'm not one, and most likely will never be one, but how does this help cord cutters? I see no real advantage to this scenario. Still have a subscription. Just apps instead of channels. How is that better? @Cuban Missles you're a cord cutter. Does this make you any happier?
Click to expand...

Because you can subscribe to *only* those apps that you want/need, not a bundle of "channels" that may never watch. The industry is corrupt is that sense... you need to subscribe to a bundle to get that one channel that you want. Serving the industry, not the customer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: foxconn, 0029937, imanidiot and 1 other person
69Mustang said:
I'm not one, and most likely will never be one, but how does this help cord cutters? I see no real advantage to this scenario. Still have a subscription. Just apps instead of channels. How is that better? @Cuban Missles you're a cord cutter. Does this make you any happier?
Click to expand...

I'm not a cord cutter mainly because we are already moving to a model that ditches traditional packaging in favor of more flexible ones....but the game is already becoming one that you'll have to subscribe to, idk, too many streaming services to get everything you may like...aka the same amount if not more goes out the door monthly. However:

One benefit: cable companies already make money hand over fist....it's insulting to make someone rent equipment on top of charging a premium, and quite often under contract at that. To me the benefit is quite simply drawing a line, stopping the gouging at some point. Letting them know they can't just do everything they want. To me it's a matter of principle. It also adds some flexibility by letting the customer pick their own equipment.

Lastly....I think someone really did get paid to hold this up. Tom Wheeler has typically not been one to back down from a fight. I think a lobbied senator(s) tapped him on the shoulder and said..."Let this one go for now Tom." Probably with a certain inflection. Just one opinion.
 
ladycsr said:
The FCC should leave it up to each individual how they want their channels delivered to them.
Click to expand...
And if this vote passed, you still would. It's a not a cure all.
[doublepost=1475172100][/doublepost]
kemal said:
FireTV with Playstation Vue anyone?
Click to expand...
If PS Vue had MASN sports, that would have been my move months ago. It was the only channel missing that stopped me from making that move.
 
I have direct.TV..most of the channels are: shopping, pay per view...movie subcription etc.....Mostly all I get for over $100 a month is: CNN, MSBBC, E!, TVG and FauxNews.....yes they are making big money....but they have lobbyists in DC that keep everything the same. Expect nothing for you and all for them...that is the way the politics of the FCC, FTC, FEC are played.
 
It's pretty clear what's going to happen. if the FCC decides to allow one to get their cable or satellite content via ATV, Roku, etc, the providers will just raise the monthly subscription to cover the loss of money collected from leased boxes. What they will do, is sell you their boxes, instead of leasing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 69Mustang
wxman2003 said:
Most people are still going to want a stb, as streaming through an ATV or Roku may not be that good, if you have slow internet speed. Even with a fast speed, the quality will not be as good.
Click to expand...
Really? maybe it's just my imagination but i feel like when i stream a show from Netflix or Hulu, it's a better quality than through my directv service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jwdsail
This is so very disappointing. Cable providers will probably release the lamest, most limited apps for their service since they will have very little incentive to provide a good experince to non set-top boxes. In their mind "If you want a better experience, get our cable box".
 
"remaining technical and legal issues,"

Which means, we're going to give the cable companies more time to pay us off some more before we present an extremely watered down version of the bill to be voted on.

This is the result of government intervention in anything: huge delays, high expense to present the bill (let alone pass it), and the resulting bill/law does nothing to change anything except raise the consumers bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macguru212
"Our corporate overlords have lobbied us to delay a decision until they can milk as much money from the populace as possible using an outdated business model. Please continue paying your astronomical TV subscription service fees until they exhaust all appeals and their lawyers buy their private islands. Thank-you."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 32828870
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back