I don't see why they would,, they can't even handle the load in peak hour as is.
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
I don't see why they would,, they can't even handle the load in peak hour as is.
Call them to cancel. You will get retentions and after haggling they took $50 off my bill. I pay less for direct tv than most "cord cutters" do for streaming.
_________________ Yes___________that is how the capitalistic system in the US works.....not in Europe however.....Corporate crime like Wells Fargo...is okay....they pay a fine and then go to lunch or on the Chris Craft....
I dropped cable tv and phone last year and put a new antenna on my tv tower. I'm perfectly happy with my savings. I do have cable internet so Charter gets me for $63.35/month but that is less than half what I was paying.
Hulu is owned by Disney, Comcast, TimeWarner, and so on. They have full control over what is available, or what isn't available, via Hulu. In other words: if something you want to watch is missing, it's not because Hulu couldn't get a contract signed with the content owner, it's because the content owner simply doesn't want it available via Hulu period.
I'm from the cable company and I'm here to help you.
I can see the cable company app now. No direct entering of the channel number. You have to single click up up down. No blocking channels. Standard definition only. No voice control. We do this so that our app is consistent across all platforms. It is not our fault. You can rent our hideously expensive box if you want a better system.
I may be reading the OP wrong, but I don't see how mandating the cable companies to allow STB's from any source results in the benefits either of you are listing. That's all the FCC is looking to do: require that TV providers allow their signal/data be readable by any STB instead of the provider's own STB. This doesn't require the cable companies to furnish all their content on demand, or even via the internet. In fact, I would imagine if this initiative does pass the FCC, we'd probably see a coax connection added to the back of Apple TV, Roku, etc. so they can receive a cable signal. You'd still need a subscription to the cable service, but you'd be able to connect the cable in your wall to the STB of your choice, and the interface would look however that STB is programmed to present it (i.e., Apple would come up with their own slick channel guide instead of the straightforward listing you see now on any of the cable/satelite providers).
All this is doing is breaking the cable company monopoly on the STB, nothing more.
My concern: they better allow the STB to not only display incoming tv service, but also record it.
I agree.... One way or another you'll be paying through the nose if you want a few premium channels and a few local stations. $20 here and there adds up.
I think you need to re-read the post. All this proposal does is remove the requirement for a cable box. This has nothing to do with content choice. It definitely doesn't break the cable monopoly since it's their apps on iOS, Android, Windows, and Roku. You're wrong about Apple as well. Apple would have liked the original proposal more. The rewrite was most definitely on behalf of the cable companies. The cable companies make apps, control the content, and will most definitely find a way to recoup the lost stb revenue from consumers. What leverage would Apple have? The same app will be available on every other device as well.
I would love to see decoupling from the dreaded set top box. Nothing worse that having a nice flat screen TV, elegantly mounted on the wall to then have all those crap cables leading to the hideous cable or satellite set top box. This change is long overdue.
Yes, the cable box is a PIA, costly (small nuke plant to run one and $30 average per month rental), one more box to learn and manage, costly repairs, expensive and difficult to upgrade (add a TV or features), lousy customer service, Contracts, outdated installation process and costs, to name the major reasons I would gladly have an app for my Apple TV.
I have Sling TV, Sports Package with Redzone and NFL Network, multiple streams at once: $30 a month.
I have WOW! Internet, 30mbps, $24.99 a month.
I pay $55 bucks for all the sports and any cable channel I'd ever watch plus internet.
In light of this article, this link is an interesting story.
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/n...ectv-parent-at-t-to-phase-out-satellites.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/n...ectv-parent-at-t-to-phase-out-satellites.html
I suspect that the unofficial tv download market is huge. I'm intentionally avoiding the term "illegal" because that seems to be attached to "uploading" using BitTorrent. Depending on country I believe that streaming or downloading from an unofficial file host is perfectly legal for the recipient. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
My point being that I have encountered many people who are doing this and it sounded like they would be ok paying for some type of more targeted reasonably priced service. In its absence they're just taking what they want. In a recent class discussion it was surprising how many people said they've cut the cord and are relying solely on other services. Surely there's a large untapped market that will contribute to the pot to offset price adjustments.
My point being that I have encountered many people who are doing this and it sounded like they would be ok paying for some type of more targeted reasonably priced service. In its absence they're just taking what they want. In a recent class discussion it was surprising how many people said they've cut the cord and are relying solely on other services. Surely there's a large untapped market that will contribute to the pot to offset price adjustments.
I hate the cable industry as much as the next guy, but I'm not really for forcing these companies to develop apps. How do they decide which platforms get apps and which don't? I'd rather let these companies put themselves out of business by ignoring the market. Why should we keep pushing these dinosaurs forward? Let them die and something better come in and replace them.
If the government wants to really fix things, they should go after the lack of competition in various markets. These companies are somehow able to lock down entire areas and keep competitors out. It's ridiculous. Why isn't that being addressed?
I've been doing this since 2010, but it's rough. For one thing, you're not guaranteed to get all of the channels OTA. The TV market where I live is about 250,000 people, so it's not exactly middle of nowhere. I can't get some major networks such as CBS which is crucial for watching NFL games. I try to stream my team's game, but I get blacked out, even though I live 120 miles away from the stadium in an adjacent TV market. For another thing, cable companies are also ISPs. In many areas, such as where I live, there's no getting around that. My cable line is 150Mbps, or I can get DSL which is 3Mbps. Right, that's some great competition! And they've been raising the rates on people who don't bundle, and they realize what the people are doing who are streaming and have been putting caps on data use. I recently upgraded to the fastest plan, which has 2TB, so there's no chance I'll hit that cap. But a couple years ago we did at 250GB on their then mid-range plan.
If the government wants to really fix things, they should go after the lack of competition in various markets. These companies are somehow able to lock down entire areas and keep competitors out. It's ridiculous. Why isn't that being addressed?
'Newspeak' Translation: "...the proposal is delayed while lobbyists work overtime to ensure 'political representatives' are afforded ample time and luxury to make a decision to kill this measure..."
I applaud the FCC for attempting to make progress where capitalism has created a stronghold in order to milk every penny out of millions on antiquated systems, especially after quietly "approving" the Charter and Time Warner Cable merger not soon after the very public rejection of the Comcast and Time Warner merger. Interesting times ahead Stateside as 75%+ of communications services are provided by one company with a history of scrambling working coaxial connections for $1.99/mo boxes while working against "Net Neutrality" and much more. Good times, good times.
Each cable company that offers internet has the ability to stream content to their customers without it going over the internet. It's how their set top boxes currently work whenever you buy content or use on demand.
Do you not have high-speed cellular internet? That should force Comcast to be more competitive, and if not, ditch them and use cellular exclusively instead. Not paying Comcast anymore will free you up to have a bigger cellular data plan.
Comcast has the ability to stream its own content without it going over the internet. In fact all of them do. They just want to keep renting set top boxes because it makes them big profits.
It should be on the ATV and needs CSpan, A&E, MSG and local programming for most metro areas for me to switch. Or at the very least local TV so I don't need 4 antennas.