Big Cable threatens to sue FCC: You can't stop us ripping off customers The US National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) has threatened to sue the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) if it pushes ahead with plans to open up cable boxes. Speaking at a press conference Thursday, the NCTA's president – and former FCC chair – Michael Powell said that the plan to force cable companies …
That'd go against the Democratic grain. They're usually against superconglomerates that tend to wax conservative. Plus there's still the matter that, no matter what the political landscape, Congress never swings very wildly between elections because each district tends to be subject to a localized SEP field. It's always, "Not MY Congressman!" That means getting a favorable Congress if not an overriding majority is a longshot.
Satellite providers in the US charging comparable fees to the cable companies provide the hardware with a charge at the beginning of the 2 year contract, which is then waived. I have no illusions, the cost of the equipment is then made back over the 2 years through service charges, fee for a DVR etc. But and it is a big but, I cannot lie, at the end of the contract the customer can usually get new equipment under the same deal. Previously I was with a cable company and I had 2 DVRs which were about 8 years old, were good room heaters, and they would only be replaced with the same antique devices if and when they failed, these were replaced with a single All Home DVR (twice as many channels to record and 5 times as much storage) and two wireless bedroom stations, all for less money than the cable service it replaced. If cable is wondering how it got to this they only have to look at the way they have screwed their customers with increasing gusto over the last 20 years or so.
" If cable is wondering how it got to this they only have to look at the way they have screwed their customers with increasing gusto over the last 20 years or so."
And the irony is, the cable providers would actually benefit in the long run from the proposed FCC regs, but they'd rather slit their own throats to maintain those oh so hefty fees and next quarter profits. They want to keep standing still, while the world races past them.
Oh well, they can always fall back on selling buggy whips to the carriage makers.
Every new TV sold in the USA has "digital" capability which can provide LOTS of channels. Why not use that to distribute the signal. Seems pretty silly to go to the trouble of having another (redundant) box just to make the cable people happy.
Oh, if you don't want to have your subscribers watching HBO (because they haven't paid for it) go back to installing filters in the subscriber's cable. It worked before when we had "cable ready" TV sets.
Indeed when cable went digital in the US it became clear that the newer digital sets didn't require any box, that is until the cable companies suddenly required the use of one. Provided free of charge... for a year, the rental has increased on 3 occasions since then I believe.
Indeed, no TV on the American market today, AFAIK, can handle any of the channels as they stand now. First, all the channels are digital (analog channels are being turned off), so the analog tuner is useless. Second, ALL the channels are encrypted (including the local stations due to the fact the satellite companies have to do it because of their transmission limitations). And since DCAS was left dead on the vine years ago, the TV and cable company can't talk to each other. Thus, you have to either get a box (not necessarily a cable box, an Android box will work if there's an app for it), attach a computer to the TV to use the web app, or in some cases use a smart TV app.
This is why what I want to see from the FCC is a push to standardize digital television no matter the source (cable, fiber, satellite, whatever) AND include two-way communication in the standard (needed for video on demand).
Two reasons:
1. Because cable companies operate on a model that gives lower rates to new customers and hits them with surprise increases after the first year. The hardware acts as a barrier to switching companies. You have to wait for WOW to come install their kit and then wait for Time Warner to pick theirs up (for a fee, of course).
2. It's hella profitable. I was paying $5 a month for an outdated cable modem for my internet, so the last time I switched carriers I bought a better model for $60. Half a year's charges paid for it. On a two-year contract, that's a huge profit. And odds are good that the modem you have came off someone else's two year contract.
The cable company contracts with providers ban them from distributing HD channels in unencrypted format. So while the QAM tuner in your TV can often tune the "expanded basic" SD channels (at least it can on mine) it can't tune any of the HD channels except your locals. Some cable systems everything - no contractual reason there just greed.
In order for TVs to watch cable channels without a box either the TV would need to run an app from the cable company (which would eventually go out of date so it wouldn't be a good long term solution) or a standard will need to be set that cable companies are required to follow and TV OEMs can design to (like QAM and ATSC) It would need to be encrypted to satisfy content owners but the technology to manage and revoke encryption certificates is pretty mature now so that shouldn't be a problem (and they'd have to do this for their smart TV apps anyway)
Can someone please explain to me the maths in these replies?
I've now twice seen strange maths being posted in comments coming from the other side of the pond. The one above was "I bought a modem for $60, I was previously paying $5 a month, so in 6 months and I've covered the costs". The previous article has a reply "I was paying $10 a month for a TV box, I switched providers and bought my own box for $120 and after 6 months it had paid for its self".
Is there something in American dollars that makes them worth more as each month goes by? Negative inflation? ;)
Nope. Not gonna happen. You take the bundle or you leave it. And you'll find EVERY provider works that way because we've cornered the market on the upstream pipes (and no, you wouldn't be able to afford their rates). Dumb pipes won't get enough revenues and nice guys finish last. Life tough. Live with it or check out.
Sky UK gives it boxes out FREE there's a nationwide service called Freeview (built in to all flat screen TVs)(which you pay a low price)which is mainly terrestrial but you can get Freesat (built into some top of the range TVs) not to mention TalkTalk/BT boxes which use the Youview (Built in to some TVs)Cable plus Freeview system and Sky boxes I don't know how many channels of the top of my head I'd say 300 but if you want to know just ask wikipedia on Freeview,Sky and Sky Q their new 4k satellite/cable hybrid system but I think the USA has a raw deal on Cable when a basic Sky package pays for the whole of Sky TV and SKY pay Billions every year for the total TV rights to football/soccer and still make billions profit that with free boxes and basic package of £21 a month and Channel 4 has got the rights to American Football and that's a nationwide free channel in SD & HD and it shares F1 with Sky
this whole argument is silly there already an open standard for cable boxes, it called OCAP, stands for Open Cable Application Platform, it been around since 2007. most cable providers already have the ability to add custom equipment, also based on the standard was Tru2Way, which was a cable card that could support all the features a set top box does, problem no TV manufacturer except Panasonic used it, because they burned themselves releasing cablecard 1.0 before the standard was ratified, which they lost a lot of money on it when the standard changed right before it released.
Similar issues with cable boxes there is nothing to prevent any manufacturer from making a box for retail sale, everything already supports it. The reason the haven't is 2 fold: 1 they don't have the production capacity to supply catv providers with boxes and the retail market. 2. the few that could dont have any incentive, they already have a steady vertical market, without having to deal with wholesalers etc.there is also not enough demand for it to be worth the trouble.
The reason catv providers are suing is the fcc wants a new standard for boxes that doesnt do anything that the current standard doesnt already, this would cost billions for no gain from what is already there.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
