Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This helps because you don't need to have the cable box from the cable company anymore. It means they don't need to come to your house anymore. It simplifies things for the customer.
It also changes the cable company from being a local thing where they have to provide local infrastructure to an online content provider kind of thing. It makes the barrier to entering the "cable" market much lower, because now it's a virtual service that runs over your internet connection instead of a literal cable that runs to your house. Should increase competition and lower costs.
Where this benefits cordcutters is that the apps allow you to only opt-in on only what you want vs having to pay for these cable packages that bundle channels you may not want with the ones you do. Also the apps have capabilities that allow you to turn off/pause subscriptions on demand. Me personally, I'm using a digital antennae for live TV but, the rest of my set-up involves a current generation Apple TV loaded with the Hulu, Netflix and HBO -- this costs me $11, $9.99 and $15 respectively. This is on top of the $60 a month I pay for 28mbps internet access. I'm now eyeballing new TV packages from Sling.com that will give me the sports channels, like ESPN, that I want. Sling has apps for most of the most popular tv boxes, Fire TV, Apple TV, Android TV, Roku etc. The sling subscription will add another $30 to my monthly bill but it still comes in way below the monthly charges I was getting from Comcast. I'm saving about $800 a year.
You can use the Slate cordcutters calculator to see how much you would save: http://www.slate.com/articles/busin..._streaming_services_with_this_calculator.html
It makes me happier for two main reasons. First, those still stuck with the cord coming out of their....wall, can still reduce costs. Right now most cable companies charge around $10 per box per month. So there is real savings, especially if you have multiple boxes. Second, this is a step. What I would like to see is that if they place their app on the different boxes (ATV, Roku, etc) then the next thing is that there is no longer a need to have geographic boundaries, meaning I can now subscribe to whichever app (Comcast, TW, Cox, Uverse, etc) I want. This creates competition. And if I have access to any of these then they will start creating a wider variety of plan that are better for individuals (closer to a la cart). All of this would be better for consumers.
My desire is that we get to the point that the only thing we are stuck with is the wire that brings the internet into the house (that will continue to be a monopoly in the short term), but that content is no longer restricted to a geographical monopoly (which is the case in too many places). I know that all this will take time and I wish they would have been a bit bolder with the regulation, but this still moves us in the right direction and helps to eliminate one more layer in the monopoly stack.
Did it 10 years ago and will never go back. Thankfully I don't watch sports and get my news from the internet so it was really easy.
Sports is the key feature really. If you're a sports fan, then cord cutting is likely a bad idea. If you're not, then it's a good idea. It's not quite as simple as that, but it does describe a fair amount of what's happening.
I think you may have misread the OP. The apps would give you access to the cable company's content catalog, not a choice of what you want to see.
Relevant quotes:
The plural apps is indicating an app for iOS, an app for Android, an... thus apps. It's not talking about a CBS app, Disney app, etc.
This is probably closer to what you wanted. Closer but still really no different that what we already have. Just skinny bundles vs big bundles. Nowhere in either scenario are you getting that one channel.
You can do this today with a Roku and Time Warner Cable... even without their internet. You can get a free video gateway (read: cable modem with wifi) that only allows video content to be delivered. And it's actually quite flawless. At least in my experience with it. Will this change once the migration to Charter is complete? I can't say for certain... but for now, this is a viable option
It's already doable today. I watch live tv through Apple TV all day. I've gotten rid of two out of three of my DVR set top boxes and will shortly be getting rid of my last one. I've already lowered my bill from $225/month to $160. When I get rid of the last DVR box it'll be down to $140/month. That's with a premium TV package, land line, and 50 megabit internet.
At some point though even as a sports fan do the commercials finally just kill it for you though? Was interesting watching my old man turn from a pretty hardcore hockey fan to just not caring anymore. To be fair, it wasn't just the commercials that killed it for him, his team started sucking. But whenever I've seen a commercial at someone's house during cable TV I just want to find their remote and mute the TV! (what I used to do back when I had cable)
Not here in the UK. Well most likely never get it, no idea why, perhaps the giant monopoly of the existing services, but for some reason we don't have these nice things like PlayStation Vue on the PlayStation let alone anything else, no HBO Go etc.
This is just a horrible precedent. I want content providers to be doing this, but I do not want the government FORCING them to develop Apps for specific platforms. That is just insane.
I can agree with this. That is a distinct advantage.
Good points that I can definitely agree with, especially the competition part and no geo-boundaries (that would be fought tooth and nail).
The proposal doesn't say anything like that. In fact, it says the opposite. The apps (for iOS, Android, Windows, and Roku) only eliminate the cable box. They don't offer any more choice than you have now. As pointed out by @ArtOfWarfare and @Cuban Missles, the elimination of the cable box has it's advantages. Those advantages don't carry over to channel choice under this proposal. Maybe in the future, but definitely not with what's in the OP.
Last edited:
Sling is an app on the Apple TV. But it's true, it's disappointing because of the cable monopoly. IF you have cable, you get the programming. The Apple TV will be half-finished until you can just give, say, a cable channel $5 a month and get access to all their programming. (The average cable channel isn't worth $5.)
[doublepost=1475175128][/doublepost]
The government wasn't "forcing" them to do anything. They wanted their hands on apps. "See? We'll give you apps!" But then they will back off. It's all to keep the cable monopoly on the 500 channels. Cable? Give us broadband and get the hell out of our lives.
This can definitely be done through ATV's and XB1's. I think the PS4 as well (don't have one, so not entirely sure). I know for a fact on the XB1 it also included the channel guide.
Except in older neighborhoods where Comcast is your only option for High-Speed Internet.
Step 1: Call your cable company and order a cable card. Mine costs me $2.95/month.
Step 2: Insert cable card into SiliconDust HDHomeRun Prime.
Step 3: Call cable company and have them pair with your cable card once it's online in the HDHomeRun Prime.
Step 4: When the cable company pairing is complete, do a channel scan in the HDHomeRun Prime.
Step 5: Set up a Plex server. I run it on my mac mini.
Step 6: Install HDHRViewer plugin in Plex server, point it at the IP address of the HDHomeRun Prime.
Step 7: Install Plex app on Apple TV.
Step 8: Tune to the plug-in's Plex channel, pick a cable channel you want to watch, and watch live tv on Apple TV.
Doesn't only work in your house. I can watch my cable tv from the Plex app on my iPhone from anywhere. I've even watched it on a plane.
Step 2: Insert cable card into SiliconDust HDHomeRun Prime.
Step 3: Call cable company and have them pair with your cable card once it's online in the HDHomeRun Prime.
Step 4: When the cable company pairing is complete, do a channel scan in the HDHomeRun Prime.
Step 5: Set up a Plex server. I run it on my mac mini.
Step 6: Install HDHRViewer plugin in Plex server, point it at the IP address of the HDHomeRun Prime.
Step 7: Install Plex app on Apple TV.
Step 8: Tune to the plug-in's Plex channel, pick a cable channel you want to watch, and watch live tv on Apple TV.
Doesn't only work in your house. I can watch my cable tv from the Plex app on my iPhone from anywhere. I've even watched it on a plane.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Ummm I don't believe this particular draft of policy is about al-a-carte, channels or old (service) model. I think it's about DRM'ing signals that can only be viewed on the cable/satt company's boxes. The draft is the FCC flexing some GOV muscle in an attempt to break that "monopoly" of what can play signals we lease from cable/satt companies. In other words, it presses the players to make apps to deliver the signals via boxes made by other players such as 
TV.
An example: DISH network makes an app for iDevices called DISH Anywhere. It basically brings a pretty similar experience of a DISH DVR to iDevices. It even lets you watch what you've stored on the DVR's hard drive on your iDevices when you are away from home. It provides a guide very much like DISH hardware guides, including all of the capabilities of recording shows, etc.
If one has- say- 5 TVs in their home, they almost have to have 5 boxes from players like DISH to see the signals on those TVs. However, if DISH was motivated to offer DISH Anywhere onTV, up to 4 TVs could have TVs be their DISH signal playing boxes. I suspect for many households that would be "good enough" especially since it would save them $7+/month on box rentals.
The FCC is arguing that such technology likeTV is capable of offering exactly that- a tangible alternative to dedicated boxes only leasable from the sources of signals. As is always the case, competition is good. In this case, the GOV is forcing competition at this particular level. The resistance- as always- is almost certainly about the big corporate players with a little bit of a monopoly in this particular way wanting to keep their control (and thus the cash that is made from it).
I myself am unhappy about the delay. But the FCC is one GOV agency that does tend to push the industries they oversee along. In other words, the FCC does not always seem to be bought off by the big players- just delayed. From my perspective it's one of the few pieces of GOV that seems to really get the concept that competition works and tends to adopt policies that make some of the greediest businesses in the world deal with doing something favorable for their customers.
Now I know there's bunches of us that want al-a-carte, commercial-free for about $8/month giving us anything we want to watch, anywhere we want to watch it... but good luck on that. We're never going to get that because it is not a viable model for anyone that would be involved except us (wild) dreamers.
FCC policy is NOT about nationalizing the industries they oversee and forcing prices to get cut 90% or more. But anyone with an "us" (consumers) vs. "them" (cable/satt companies) mentality who would take a good, deep look at FCC policy decisions should see an agency that appears to favor "us" over them more often than not... especially in obviously exploitative matters like descrambling boxes being available from only a single source.
Yes, they move slow- often seemingly too slow- but they make industries happy with the status quo evolve in ways that is- more often than not- favorable to the average Joe.
TV.An example: DISH network makes an app for iDevices called DISH Anywhere. It basically brings a pretty similar experience of a DISH DVR to iDevices. It even lets you watch what you've stored on the DVR's hard drive on your iDevices when you are away from home. It provides a guide very much like DISH hardware guides, including all of the capabilities of recording shows, etc.
If one has- say- 5 TVs in their home, they almost have to have 5 boxes from players like DISH to see the signals on those TVs. However, if DISH was motivated to offer DISH Anywhere on
TV, up to 4 TVs could have TVs be their DISH signal playing boxes. I suspect for many households that would be "good enough" especially since it would save them $7+/month on box rentals.The FCC is arguing that such technology like
TV is capable of offering exactly that- a tangible alternative to dedicated boxes only leasable from the sources of signals. As is always the case, competition is good. In this case, the GOV is forcing competition at this particular level. The resistance- as always- is almost certainly about the big corporate players with a little bit of a monopoly in this particular way wanting to keep their control (and thus the cash that is made from it).I myself am unhappy about the delay. But the FCC is one GOV agency that does tend to push the industries they oversee along. In other words, the FCC does not always seem to be bought off by the big players- just delayed. From my perspective it's one of the few pieces of GOV that seems to really get the concept that competition works and tends to adopt policies that make some of the greediest businesses in the world deal with doing something favorable for their customers.
Now I know there's bunches of us that want al-a-carte, commercial-free for about $8/month giving us anything we want to watch, anywhere we want to watch it... but good luck on that. We're never going to get that because it is not a viable model for anyone that would be involved except us (wild) dreamers.
FCC policy is NOT about nationalizing the industries they oversee and forcing prices to get cut 90% or more. But anyone with an "us" (consumers) vs. "them" (cable/satt companies) mentality who would take a good, deep look at FCC policy decisions should see an agency that appears to favor "us" over them more often than not... especially in obviously exploitative matters like descrambling boxes being available from only a single source.
Yes, they move slow- often seemingly too slow- but they make industries happy with the status quo evolve in ways that is- more often than not- favorable to the average Joe.
Last edited:
Exactly. I smell persuasive and vigorous pushback in the form of powerful lobbying of the FCC and Congress from content owners and distributors leaving no stone unturned to protect their cushy profit structure.
They no doubt want to ensure that the coming wholesale changes of the television industry, that by now are inevitable, will be advantageous to them rather than detrimental.
I think in the next 5 years or so, the cable companies and telcos will become just plain old broadband providers. Yes, they will offer their own OTT services (possibly for a reduced rate, and other online-based services), but all video content will come via the internet rather than a traditional cable system. It will be up to the user to subscribe to the service that most closely matches what they want, taking DVR service, On Demand, TV Anywhere, and channel availability into account. You pick your device, then subscribe to the app(s) that get you the content you want.
I just don't see a point in the current transition of truly a la carte channels or apps. Hulu is a great start, but they are missing current episodes of many programs, and missing many content providers alltogether. With the proliferation of online content providers, it's going to be essential to subscribe to several services to cobble together the content that you want, if you want the current, popular programming.
I dropped cable earlier this year, and Playstation Vue provides me with nearly all of the content I'm looking for. Coupled with Netflix, I'm pretty well set. But, Hulu has their own original content, Amazon has their own, and now CBS is developing their own for their service. It can get a bit pricey to get everything you think you want.
I just don't see a point in the current transition of truly a la carte channels or apps. Hulu is a great start, but they are missing current episodes of many programs, and missing many content providers alltogether. With the proliferation of online content providers, it's going to be essential to subscribe to several services to cobble together the content that you want, if you want the current, popular programming.
I dropped cable earlier this year, and Playstation Vue provides me with nearly all of the content I'm looking for. Coupled with Netflix, I'm pretty well set. But, Hulu has their own original content, Amazon has their own, and now CBS is developing their own for their service. It can get a bit pricey to get everything you think you want.
If no body noticed, this is what Steve Jobs was taking about when he said he "finally cracked it". I would bet Apple lobbied heavy to get the FCC to revisit this and rewrite the rules. Doing this will break the monopoly cable companies hold. As a matter of fact, it seems they knew this was coming and started experimenting with the idea of allowing you to watch your channels through Apple TV.
Regardless with this in place and Apple TV will be an integrated environment for media from all sources. This will blur the lines between where media source is from and eventually people will be accustomed to accessing media through Apple TV. With that, Apple will have a lot of leverage against content providers as it did with iTunes and Apple Music.
Regardless with this in place and Apple TV will be an integrated environment for media from all sources. This will blur the lines between where media source is from and eventually people will be accustomed to accessing media through Apple TV. With that, Apple will have a lot of leverage against content providers as it did with iTunes and Apple Music.
Just wait until everyone is streaming their cable channels in your neighborhood. Hopefully your isp has the infrastructure to handle the increased load, or your speeds will slow to a snail's pace.