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 Moves Ahead With Proposal Aiming to Make Subscription TV Available on Any Set-Top Box
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What make you think Microsoft is going to get into the 3rd party box biz?
I think that all that would need to happen to prevent a large part of the potential problems would be for a standards org to arise that would come up with a framework to make sure these boxes adhered to some sort of standard.
Oh crap... I hope Google doesn't see this.
It probably depends on the company. TiVo focuses only on DVR/live TV, so they rely on yearly subscriptions to support hardware/software development.
A company like Apple could add a tuner app to Apple TV and not make it a subscription service.
Then again, Apple could do that today by supporting CableCard, yet they haven't....
Thanks for clearing it that out for me, I knew what was it about but I wasn't 100% sure, gotta love those comments lol, yes i totally agree! besides those cheap boxes goes bad with your furniture
This is huge! hopefully in Europe will do the same thing
They make a good profit on their boxes. Maybe even more then they make on the content. Interesting to me, you can turn on cable TV and let it run 24 hours a day with No limitations using their box, change over to streaming and data caps appear. Then they charge you for data you do not use each month plus over charge you if you use more then allotted. The whole industry needs to change. Hopefully we the consumers can move the process along.
This has to be a plus for the industry. They spend so much time fixing them, replacing them, installing them. If they just said 'What's you ID on the box', or you just added the box to your account somehow, that would put more money in their pockets. Oh, wait. What am I saying...
The pre-breakup AT&T made a MINT off of little old ladies and the 'rent' on their Princess phones. People were paying rent even after they themselves tossed the phones. I remember we had the power injecter still plugged in until the day we sold the place. My parents thought that it was necessary 'to make the phone work'. All it did was power the night light on one of the incarnations of that model phone.
The pre-breakup AT&T made a MINT off of little old ladies and the 'rent' on their Princess phones. People were paying rent even after they themselves tossed the phones. I remember we had the power injecter still plugged in until the day we sold the place. My parents thought that it was necessary 'to make the phone work'. All it did was power the night light on one of the incarnations of that model phone.
Perhaps because the cable providers are disconnected from the ad revenue when people are streaming vs viewing live TV? Remember that STB is actually confirming that the programming is being viewed and that information is worth money to those advertisers on the commercial breaks, which trickles down to the show runners and their networks, and eventually to the cable providers. I don't know if there is a lower rate posted for shows that get a lot of time shifting viewers but I wouldn't doubt it. They receive zero ad dollars from streamed media.
Perhaps that is going to change as the cable provider business model falls apart further and further. And maybe thats why Google wants in to the national infrastructure in such a big way. At some point in the future, they may extend their current smartphone share to 80 percent of actual carriage in this country, no matter the medium. Cell, land line, tv, data - everything. Add in the whole IoT that these companies keep pushing. Thats 80 percent of people who use media in some way that are going to have their data subjected to those profiling algorithms we've discussed in other threads.
Stuff is getting scary.
I don't know... The whole basis for pricing being how many 'eye are watching' seems really bizarre. A friend of mine has a parrot, and apparently can't be left alone without noise, so they leave the TV on when they are gone. That apparently counts? I know people that leave the TV on for their dogs when they are out, and that counts too? (BTW: I can't wait for the movie Pets to come out. Just the premise of it sounds HYSTERICAL!)
But it's like Google charging/paying for 'clicks'.
Dang. Capitalism will go to no ends to monetize the craziest things...
I remember someone talking about taxing the air. We're probably not far. (realizing that's a ridiculous proposition, but also seeing the 'window tax' in old age England, and a 'dog tax' in near prehistoric Germany)
I don't know that this can really ever happen since the major networks owned by a company subsidize the smaller ones. ABC, ESPN, and Disney subsidize the 5 other ESPN channels and the 3 other Disney channels and probably another dozen even smaller ones.
No, because they don't eat the cost. They pass it onto the consumer. They charge about $15/month for the cable boxes, which only costs them about $300. As long as a consumer keeps the same box for 20 months, it's pure profit for them. Most consumers keep the same box for several years, during which they pay the cable provider for essentially nothing.
I finally ditched my DVRs on Fios and now just use a cable card HDHomeRun Prime and Apple TV with the Channels app (and temporarily my PS3 for DRM channels until Channels app gets their DTCP-IP certification). It's a great setup and is saving me a ton of money.
But a big thing that a lot of people forget or don't know is that the channel guide on virtually every cable connected device is patented by Rovi and they charge licensing fees to everyone that uses it. I'm not defending the obscene monthly set-top box rental fees, but your provider isn't just charging you an equipment rental fee. It also covers the software licensing fees.
But a big thing that a lot of people forget or don't know is that the channel guide on virtually every cable connected device is patented by Rovi and they charge licensing fees to everyone that uses it. I'm not defending the obscene monthly set-top box rental fees, but your provider isn't just charging you an equipment rental fee. It also covers the software licensing fees.
Well, you don't remember when the Justice Dept. broke up ATT, then; which was a regulated monopoly just like the cable companies are today. A lot of people complained at the time about the government screwing things up. Five years out, we had actual competition, more choice, lower prices, etc. You could finally own your own phone-- not just rent it-- and you could get it from someone not named "Bell."
What part of the interface would Apple lack control over? It seems like all the cable provider would still control is what you can access over the cable connection.
Don't be so sure its "capitalism". Since the feds have a huge role in the data gathering, its more like textbook "fascism".
In several states people are getting offers for a "free" well inspection from their local county or municipality. After the inspector leaves the people are surprised to find a meter installed on their well, and they start getting monthly bills for using the water they previously had exclusive rights to. The govt then proclaims that the water belongs "to the people", and they're doing this to safeguard it, etc. Tamper with the meter or disable it and you end up with troops knocking on your door. (e.g. they call out SWAT teams to serve the warrants, complete with MRAPs. All that military gear the LEOs get under the DOD 1033 program has a catch: you must use the equipment at least once a year or it is forfeit back to the USGov.)
My point is that Google can go ahead an monetize whatever they want. No one is forcing me to use their crap systems. The government on the other hand...
I'm setting mine up this weekend. How does it compare to the FiOS box as far as reliability/responsiveness? It has to pass the wife test.
Also, interesting point on the channel guide. Would this apply to the Channels app as well? I know they display the current program details, although they don't show the entire guide so perhaps they aren't impacted by this patent.
UPDATE: That would also explain why SiliconDust are looking to charge $60/year for their upcoming DVR app.
Don't forget though, that monopoly was heavily protected by the same feds that people think are the last defense against "uncontrolled capitalism". By law, you were not allowed to own a phone, or use a phone from outside your monopoly provider, or even make your own phone from scraps. You had to rent your phone from the monopoly provider. True, the feds "broke" them up into Regional Bell Operating Companies, but that could have been largely due to the fact that AT&T saw the commoditization of land lines coming in the near future, and sought to increase their revenue streams by first leasing out capacity and then later divesting themselves of infrastructure. It was far easier to do that in pieces, while the parent company held on to the still-lucrative long distance market.
The RBOCS ultimately ended up reconsolidating, with nary a peep from that beneficent government BTW, and buying up the LD business while selling off pay phones to the CCOT providers. Cellular was coming up rapidly so suddenly laws were changed and private citizens could own pay phones. Its funny how laws change right when the "regulated monopolies" need that the most.
I find the HDHomeRun + Apple TV combo to be fantastic. It truly was plug and play and I find it as quick or quicker tuning into a channel. I also think the picture quality is great. I have 75/75 internet. Yes, Channels app lacks a channel grid and it takes getting used to, but we (wife & 2 daughters) are 2 weeks into this setup and they have no issues at all. It helps to just add the channels you watch to your favorites list for easier access.
You are also correct in regards to SDs DVR app. They are charging to cover licensing fees. Tivo does the same... although it's quite a bit more at $150 year.
I would like to see this happen to Comcast, but that is not what is happening here. Also, that is one example. Look at all the others that started out sounding good, but went to crap once the bureaucracy sets it.
I currently have Comcast, which I use for internet + HBO and Showtime. They gave me the non-HD digital box that doesn't have a rental cost, which now sits unused in the box that it was shipped in. I would never use it because the UI on their STBs sucks so bad.
I would love to access my other channels from my ATVs, but I have serious doubts on how this would happen, if it will ever happen.
I'm really looking forward to going with HDHR and AppleTV myself. What will your total investment be on your system?
My setup is:
HDHomeRun Prime - $60 (used on eBay - $115 new at Amazon)
AppleTV - $100 (Radio Shack sale - $150 new at Apple)
Channels App - $15 (intro price - now $25)
Fios Cable Card - $5 /month
So $175 up front and $5 /month
Thats reasonable. Now I wish I'd jumped on that ATV4 sale but at the time I really didn't think I'd need it any more than my ATV3. I have to look into my local system and see if a card is even needed (are my HD channels in the clear or not?) and if it is needed, is it available? I also understand the whole card thing may be going away in the next couple of years. Lots of things to consider here.
Are cable companies like Comcast not allowed to put their Comcast app on something like Roku/Apple TV and offer their cable service over IP to everyone in the country to help expand their market?
I'm not sure why cable companies have not done this, so would love to be enlightened if there is a reason.
I'm not sure why cable companies have not done this, so would love to be enlightened if there is a reason.
