FCC Proposal Aims to Make Subscription TV Available on Any Set-Top Box

[wmhjr]

Your first cable card is supposed to be free. Or at least that is what the folks on Tivo Community will tell you...
Did TiVo remove the service fee for the Mini's? I have to pay 6 or 7 a month for mine, would have needed to pay 150 for lifetime service on top of the 99 cost for the box.

I think the encryption issue, plus the content flags are what would prevent a software solution from thriving. What is funny is even the current set top boxes that the cable companies provide, now use cable card (it is just not removable).

No, the first cable card is not supposed to be free. There is no requirement to provide a free cablecard. Some providers, in some regions, do. Cablecard monthly rental fees are also varied (as they should be to be honest). They can be as low as $2.99 per month, and I've seen reports as high as $9.99 per month.

Initially and for a while, Minis did require either $150 lifetime or a monthly fee. Now the $149.99 includes service.

 

[diamond.g]

Once again, another misrepresentation of the term "monopoly". Please define exactly how there is a "monopoly".

Please don't use emotional based arguments, or just expose "what you don't like" but in fact use actual facts and data.

I think what folks are missing is the government should have never allowed the private companies to own the last mile of infrastructure. The government should have layed it then leased it out to anyone willing to pay. Otherwise we end up with the same problem AT&T whined about with telephones.

 

[wmhjr]

A lot of this pricing stuff is just a red herring. Yeah, if this goes through, you can save $5. You can do that now if you buy a TIVO. You can unbundle the channels now by just buying the shows you watch on Amazon or whatever a la carte. Oh, but no sports. And there's the rub. The big issue with multichannel prices going through the roof is sports. Until companies are willing to drop ESPN and the local sports channel from their package and people are willing to accept that, nothing is going to change in cable pricing.

Let's be clear. You are probably not going to save $5/month by buying a Tivo. Not saying that Tivo is not worth it. But it is a "premium solution" that is in almost every case, more expensive once you factor in that you also have to purchase the hardware.
[doublepost=1453983010][/doublepost]

I think what folks are missing is the government should have never allowed the private companies to own the last mile of infrastructure. The government should have layed it then leased it out to anyone willing to pay. Otherwise we end up with the same problem AT&T whined about with telephones.

Also BS. So you're saying that you would be fine with RG6 being the only thing delivering services to your neighborhood? Not a single one of us would have fiber had your solution taken place. Not one.

And by the same logic, the government would also have laid the natural gas lines? Water lines? Electricity lines? Cell phone towers? Where does your solution end?

And oh, BTW - there is nothing - NOTHING - preventing a "new company" from installing their own last mile of infrastructure. That is, nothing except cost. How about you go ahead and do it. You dig up the money, invest it and build out the infrastructure. I can absolutely guarantee you that here in my locale, there is not a single whit of governmental restriction to stop you. The only thing stopping you is your ability to get the money and your effort. So, if it's that easy, and if we've demonstrated it's not a legal restriction, why don't you do it? Maybe you could be a Gazillionaire!

Frankly, your solution is state owned services. That is a different form of government than I want in the United States.

Furthermore, the last mile of infrastructure is probably the LEAST important in this discussion. What is relevant concerning net neutrality is the head end, routing and switching infrastructure, etc.

 

[diamond.g]

No, the first cable card is not supposed to be free. There is no requirement to provide a free cablecard. Some providers, in some regions, do. Cablecard monthly rental fees are also varied (as they should be to be honest). They can be as low as $2.99 per month, and I've seen reports as high as $9.99 per month.

Initially and for a while, Minis did require either $150 lifetime or a monthly fee. Now the $149.99 includes service.

Dangit, I should check to see if I can pay a smaller rate to get lifetime on the Mini...

Hmm, looks like you are right, I am getting my 1 cable card 'free' from Comcast, but they are not charging me the 'HD channels' fee... sigh. Interestingly enough the FCC says if you have a cable package that includes the cost of a cable company provided box, you are supposed to get a discount for using your own box. https://www.fcc.gov/media/cablecard-know-your-rights

 

[wmhjr]

Dangit, I should check to see if I can pay a smaller rate to get lifetime on the Mini...

Hmm, looks like you are right, I am getting my 1 cable card 'free' from Comcast, but they are not charging me the 'HD channels' fee... sigh. Interestingly enough the FCC says if you have a cable package that includes the cost of a cable company provided box, you are supposed to get a discount for using your own box. https://www.fcc.gov/media/cablecard-know-your-rights

Yes, that's correct. And if you're getting your first cablecard free, they can argue - with reason - that this is your discount. It does in fact cost them money for that card, and for the management of that card.

If I were you I would certainly call Tivo about lifetime on the mini. You never know - they might help you out on the lifetime. I bit the bullet and have lifetime on everything. That being the case, I will likely not stick with Tivo in the future, as they have effectively priced themselves out of the market with their new product line - the "Bolt". After the first year, it's a $150/yr service fee - or $599 for "lifetime" for that unit. Note that NONE of the "lifetime" plans can roll onto replacement units. So for my Roamio Pros, if they die, so does the "lifetime service plan". Even if I replace them with an exact same model.

 

[diamond.g]

Let's be clear. You are probably not going to save $5/month by buying a Tivo. Not saying that Tivo is not worth it. But it is a "premium solution" that is in almost every case, more expensive once you factor in that you also have to purchase the hardware.
[doublepost=1453983010][/doublepost]

Also BS. So you're saying that you would be fine with RG6 being the only thing delivering services to your neighborhood? Not a single one of us would have fiber had your solution taken place. Not one.

And by the same logic, the government would also have laid the natural gas lines? Water lines? Electricity lines? Cell phone towers? Where does your solution end?

Frankly, your solution is state owned services. That is a different form of government than I want in the United States.

Furthermore, the last mile of infrastructure is probably the LEAST important in this discussion. What is relevant concerning net neutrality is the head end, routing and switching infrastructure, etc.

Wait, I am not advocating state run services. I just don't see how having each company run its own lines to my house to provide a service that can come over the same line (Fiber, RG6, or otherwise) is cost effective. In some cases we as a community aren't even allowed to use our local tax money to run fiber even if we wanted to.

Virginia
Short Explanation: Municipal electric utilities may offer telecommunications services (but not cable television) subject to a variety of reporting requirements and other hurdles not required of the private sector. Cable services may be only offered after showing the network will cash flow in the first year.

Commentary: Virginia's stringent requirements for a public entity to offer cable services are a de facto prohibition on publicly owned broadband networks (though BVU's OptiNet was grandfathered). By requiring unattainable cash flow requirements to offer cable services, communities are unable to build any modern high-speed broadband networks as they typically require the revenues generated by a triple-play offering.

Statute: VA Code § 15.2-2108.6, VA Code § 56-265.4:456-484.7:1, and VA Code § 56-484.7:1

 

[ggibson913]

The solution to this problem is for the government to do to the cable providers what they did to Ma Bell back in the day and what they are doing for Gas and Electric today. Allow new providers to use existing lines of service to provide TV, Phone, and Internet services. This would create competition in the marketplace that would drive down costs to consumers. Of course, the cable companies wouldn't want that to happen.

 

[wmhjr]

Wait, I am not advocating state run services. I just don't see how having each company run its own lines to my house to provide a service that can come over the same line (Fiber, RG6, or otherwise). In some cases we as a community aren't even allowed to use our local tax money to run fiber even if we wanted to.

Actually, that is exactly what you are advocating. Specifically. You make a claim that all services can "come over the same line" without any data to support it. And to be completely clear - it is a totally false representation. It is simply not true. If for example, that "line" is RG6, it is not possible that "all services could come over the same line". Furthermore, you are again making the layman mistake of confusing what the "service" is. You are massively (and mistakenly) misrepresenting and under appreciating the convergence of that physical "cable" and the different protocols, services, and functions necessary to deliver actual consumer services.

Second, even in the VA case, I do not agree that this prevents a build-out. First of all, this restriction applies to local government/municipality organizations trying to deliver their own service - and NOT to private companies. For example, it does not apply to a cable company, multiple cable companies, or a private internet or content company. Second, the intent is only to prevent churn and chaos associated with abandonment of services when the cash flow does not sustain an insupportable business model. While I don't agree with the VA Code, I also take exception to it somehow "creating a monopoly". In fact, I can make the argument that it is actually intended to PROHIBIT a monopoly.
[doublepost=1453984347][/doublepost]

The solution to this problem is for the government to do to the cable providers what they did to Ma Bell back in the day and what they are doing for Gas and Electric today. Allow new providers to use existing lines of service to provide TV, Phone, and Internet services. This would create competition in the marketplace that would drive down costs to consumers. Of course, the cable companies wouldn't want that to happen.

Please read earlier posts. This is an utterly preposterous and ridiculous idea, devoid of technical feasibility. It "sounds good". So does the idea of being able to buy a Mercedes AMG E63 for $15K. Neither is either reasonable or attainable.

 

[diamond.g]

Actually, that is exactly what you are advocating. Specifically. You make a claim that all services can "come over the same line" without any data to support it. And to be completely clear - it is a totally false representation. It is simply not true. If for example, that "line" is RG6, it is not possible that "all services could come over the same line". Furthermore, you are again making the layman mistake of confusing what the "service" is. You are massively (and mistakenly) misrepresenting and under appreciating the convergence of that physical "cable" and the different protocols, services, and functions necessary to deliver actual consumer services.

Second, even in the VA case, I do not agree that this prevents a build-out. First of all, this restriction applies to local government/municipality organizations trying to deliver their own service - and NOT to private companies. For example, it does not apply to a cable company, multiple cable companies, or a private internet or content company. Second, the intent is only to prevent churn and chaos associated with abandonment of services when the cash flow does not sustain an insupportable business model. While I don't agree with the VA Code, I also take exception to it somehow "creating a monopoly". In fact, I can make the argument that it is actually intended to PROHIBIT a monopoly.
[doublepost=1453984347][/doublepost]

Please read earlier posts. This is an utterly preposterous and ridiculous idea, devoid of technical feasibility. It "sounds good". So does the idea of being able to buy a Mercedes AMG E63 for $15K. Neither is either reasonable or attainable.

Fair enough. Maybe I am just bitter that I can't get FiOS and get off Comcast without moving.

 

[wmhjr]

BTW, just to be clear on this as well. I do not now, never have, and never will, work for or am associated with any Cable company or internet provider.

 

[2010mini]

This is a prime example of how screwed up our government is. The government allowed these mega cable company mergers to create geographic monopolies (yes, it's a monopoly, try getting a satellite in San Francisco or New York or Chicago high-rises, it's cable or nothing). They allow them based on the cable companies making promises to not raise rates or degrade service. Then when the monopolistic mergers go through, the FCC who approved the merger to begin with all of a sudden is interested in introducing regulation to fight what they themselves approved. But by this time, the cable companies are so big and have so much money their lobbyist machine buys their way into the government hush club.

It's really so screwed up. All I can say is thank god the DOJ didn't allow TMO and ATT to merge, because had they, we'd have a cellular industry that looks just like the cable TV industry.

That is not so cut and dried. Cable companies have a monopoly due in part to local municipalities giving long term contracts to cable operators. At the time they looked at it as a win win. Customers get tv services and the cable company was responsible for maintaining the hardware.

And some states have stupid laws preventing local municipalities from installing their own pay tv/ broadband to compete with the local cable company.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Strong logic there. People die in prisons, therefore we shouldn't punish people because they might die in prison.

If you are going to be critical of other's logic you need to look at your own. Your analogy is misplaced. The gist of your position in the post I responded to was "the FCC was a consumer savior, protecting unlimited plan holder's rights to use unlimited data without being throttled." My point is that the FCC won that battle but lost the war. The consumer is worse off, not better off now. (And if you knew anything about administrative law you'd know enforcement is discretionary. It's not black and white and consequences are a consideration. It's not about pure punishment.)

 

[ggibson913]

Actually, that is exactly what you are advocating. Specifically. You make a claim that all services can "come over the same line" without any data to support it. And to be completely clear - it is a totally false representation. It is simply not true. If for example, that "line" is RG6, it is not possible that "all services could come over the same line". Furthermore, you are again making the layman mistake of confusing what the "service" is. You are massively (and mistakenly) misrepresenting and under appreciating the convergence of that physical "cable" and the different protocols, services, and functions necessary to deliver actual consumer services.

Second, even in the VA case, I do not agree that this prevents a build-out. First of all, this restriction applies to local government/municipality organizations trying to deliver their own service - and NOT to private companies. For example, it does not apply to a cable company, multiple cable companies, or a private internet or content company. Second, the intent is only to prevent churn and chaos associated with abandonment of services when the cash flow does not sustain an insupportable business model. While I don't agree with the VA Code, I also take exception to it somehow "creating a monopoly". In fact, I can make the argument that it is actually intended to PROHIBIT a monopoly.
[doublepost=1453984347][/doublepost]

Please read earlier posts. This is an utterly preposterous and ridiculous idea, devoid of technical feasibility. It "sounds good". So does the idea of being able to buy a Mercedes AMG E63 for $15K. Neither is either reasonable or attainable.

You are not correct, this is exactly why Internet, TV, Phone services are better/Faster in EU. If the phone companies did this can you explain the difference between phone lines and cable lines. Here read for yourself:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/

 

[kds1]

It's time to retire the outdated term "set-top box".

 

[AntonLee]

Make the subscriptions less expensive with more selection and you'll get more subscribers.

In the meantime, if you oppose the cable block trying to stymie this work, cancel and tell them why.

 

[wmhjr]

Fair enough. Maybe I am just bitter that I can't get FiOS and get off Comcast without moving.

That's also fair. But while there is significant debate about whether some of the incentives and such were warranted, Verizon spent billions rolling out Fios - to a reported 12% of the US population. And it was so expensive that the market forced them to stop. The ROI simply was not there. And is not there. Now there is still some fiber being deployed by Google, ATT and others, but nonetheless it is a VERY expensive proposition. And it takes decades to earn back value. So, if you then arbitrarily reduce the fee income from that investment, you are yet further decreasing the likely deployment rate of faster technologies. Period. It's simple math, reinforced by investor behavior (with good reason), factually proven in the market.

Many of the proponents of net neutrality want to ignore facts, because the facts don't support their desires. Well, I "desire" to be a millionaire, and I "desire" that my increasing age would not prevent me from running as far/fast. The difference is that I recognize my desires are simply unattainable fantasies, where some others simply want to force their desires on other people.

 

[Tech198]

what it really comes down to is cost...

Just like the movie industry wants you to buy movies instead of pirating them, TV Networks want more money,.. and it's no different with cable companies....

Yes, while set top boxes returned will see lost revenue, it will be balanced out "kinda" by cable subscriptions...

But for cable companies that is not enough.... and use piracy as the means to overshadow the true nature of being greedy.

 

[wmhjr]

Actually, to be honest, this entire debate is ridiculous. Cord Cutting is already taking the teeth bit by bit away from cable companies. While it used to be very rare, cord cutting is becoming pretty common now - though hardly prominent. But, the pace at which it has increased is getting faster, and markets are responding. The argument about "set top boxes" is getting almost to the point where it's like a discussion about whether or not we should force cable companies to provide us free Beta AND VHS tapes. It just does not matter. Tivo struggles to stay alive, and frankly is only still a business because they've licensed their software to many cable companies (mostly internationally). Their "consumer" products have lost money for years, and can't sustain the business. So how exactly does making their product effectively easier for others to get into the market somehow make them more viable? Or promote "competition"? Hmmmm......

We also in this country LOVE to compare our "broadband" infrastructure to other countries. As in, other countries where the entire country is smaller than one state in the US. And where 75% of the population of that country lives concentrated in one area. The vast expanses and distances in the US make deployment much more difficult and expensive. You ever wonder what consumer broadband is available in the middle of rural Russia?

What bothers me is that there just might be enough self centered and uneducated people demanding their politicians do something that we could end up with regulation that actually increases cost, decreases quality and performance - and then those same people will again blame "big business" or somebody (but themselves) for the impact.
[doublepost=1453986117][/doublepost]

what it really comes down to is cost...

Just like the movie industry wants you to buy movies instead of pirating them, they want more money,.. and it's no different with cable companies....

Yes, while set top boxes returned will see lost revenue, it will be balanced out "kinda" by cable subscriptions...

But for cable companies that is not enough.... and use piracy as the means to overshadow the true nature of being greedy.

Again, BS. Please provide data that suggests that "while set top boxes returned will see lost revenue, it will be balanced out "kinda" by cable subscriptions".

And if you're comparing this to the difference between buying (or renting) a movie versus stealing it, that speaks volumes. Are you suggesting that people should feel free to steal content? That the movie industry is a "not for profit" industry?

If so, please post your street address, because we should all then feel free to stop over and steal whatever we like from you.
[doublepost=1453986608][/doublepost]

You are not correct, this is exactly why Internet, TV, Phone services are better/Faster in EU. If the phone companies did this can you explain the difference between phone lines and cable lines. Here read for yourself:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/

Actually, you should read the argument yourself. First of all, the (dated) commentary (written in 2011) is clearly biased toward one side. But once you really start reading it, and get about 2/3 down, you start to see the differences. The largest one is in fact size - or more accurately - RURAL impact. The author discounts this by saying that between DC and Boston, there are heavy concentrations of residents. Yes, that's true. And not so coincidentally - that is ALSO where you see the heaviest concentration of existing fiber build-outs in the US. But what does it NOT address. How about that region from Columbus Ohio across the MidWest. This approach would effectively abandon investment in those areas.

So, as mentioned, going down this path might help some people, but at a severe impact to others. All the while by seizing assets that private companies invested in. And let's get this a little closer to the mark as well. Those private companies? Guess what? They are institutional investments that the majority of the US has 401K/retirement interest in - so asset seizure negatively impacts their retirement just to start.

A simplistic argument to just "get what you want at any cost" has real ramifications.

 

[wood1208]

Has anyone thought if FCC or customers squeeze Cable operators who also provides internet access can raise internet access cost way higher to make up for the lost revenue from the cable cord cutters. How we going to get streaming(even cheaper) over local internet access without paying higher to Cable companies ? Seems like pay now or pay later.
Unless Government puts cable in ground and provides internet access at low price. Than we buy STB from open market and than choose what we want to watch and pay for.
Tell me is their a escape from Cable companies who owns internet access wiring in our towns ?

 

[wmhjr]

Sure. Wireless. It costs money to deliver service no matter what.

 

[2010mini]

This would be good. Not only do I have to pay for a box but the boxes are big and run like garbage.

It's because those boxes are exempt from energy efficiency standards like all other electronics and appliances. That's largely the reason so many pay tv STBs suck.

If the FCC forced all STB manufacturers to energy efficiency compliance. Right now these energy hogs drain more electricity than a fridge.

 

[a7thton]

I have 2 TiVos with Cable Cards from Comcast. It was not difficult at all. I can even watch xfinity on demand on my TiVos.

You are lucky because Comcast has one of the best, if not the best, cable card implementation in the cable business. Many other providers treat cable cards much differently and make it quite a hassle to use a TiVo with a cable card.

 

[2010mini]

The fight against broadband monopolies can and has been won at the local level. Get your fello citizens together and demand municipal broadband.

 

[a7thton]

If they wind up allowing this, it should include language that forces STB's that want to participate (like Apple TV), must implement the FULL cable interface (even if through a programming interface), which would allow the cable companies to maintain control of what and how they offer the content and give the STB's a way to also provide other methods of content accessing (Hulu, Netflix, Network Apps, etc)...

Essentially, this would allow the cable companies to keep providing DVR services, On-Demand services, etc. and also allow for the full LIVE TV features.

What you are suggesting would cause all 3rd party boxes to look exactly the same, as far as UI goes. The 3rd party boxes would essentially run the cable company's app, making the UI the same on a Roku/Apple TV/TiVo, etc.

This doesn't seem ideal, because innovation in UI is often done by 3rd parties and this would utterly destroy that.

This is about more than choice of hardware. This is about choice in UI and choice in software as well.
[doublepost=1453992243][/doublepost]

this is a fantastic idea with almost zero chance of passing. if you know the cable lobby, you know they are one of the most powerful and corrupt in the country. we dont need cable boxes now, but cable companies use them as a pure profit center. i was a COX subscriber for years in San Diego and they never required set-top box for basic cable...until just recently when they decided to find more ways to make up the money they are losing from all of the cable cutters. very soon, you will be REQUIRED to use one of their boxes even for basic cable. thats taking technology backwards all in the name of profit...

that said, i hope it passes, just have very little hope in it....

I agree with your sentiment, but the reason why you can't just hook a coax in to the back of your TV anymore is because most, if not all, cable companies have converted to an all digital system, but does need a set top box to work.

Or, if the FCC has its way, the tech could be uniform across the industry and then the TV manufactures could build it in to the TV, thus making it so that you could, again, plug that coax right in to the TV.
[doublepost=1453992420][/doublepost]

If a network is broadcasting on the public airwaves and they provide streaming online, that streaming may not require authentication against a paid TV service subscription.

Then the networks would just stop broadcasting on the airwaves. Only those who use OTA antennas benefit from that any way, and that is a VERY tiny portion of users.

 

[2010mini]

Nothing like government telling a business how to run...

Yes, Because leaving businesses alone and trust they won't do very bad things. And then try to block or hide those deeds has worked so well.