6 ms·

Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

48 points by sciurus 10y ago

dsr_ 10y ago
Comcast is being willfully uncomprehending. The FCC is telling them to provide means to programmatically identify a subscriber, authorize the subscriber's device or program, get an available content list, and then receive a media stream. IP, QAM, fuzzy pen-and-ink sketches on vellum, whatever, as long as they document it well enough for anybody else to write to the spec. Comcast uses Lawyers; it's partially effective. If the FCC had more pull they would ask an industry consortium together with Public Knowledge and EFF to design an API, and then mandate the use of that API on all video systems. That would then collapse as the cable companies desperately want to avoid competing with each other.
- nickff 10y ago
  Most of the objections from the cable companies seem to be about DRM concerns, licensing (from studios), and ad-stripping. If 3rd parties are allowed to remove or replace ads, it will dramatically change cable television, and mean that consumers will have to pay for all the costs of television program production themselves, without the subsidy of advertisers. I am not sure whether that would be better or worse than the current model, but it is not obviously better. I am not sure that the FCC has the authority to mandate the creation of an API. Putting that aside, how exactly would you force agreement on an open API? What do you do if parties disagree? You can't always split the difference, and you may end up with a very limited API which could even be unworkable. This could end up like the cable card, which was eventually recognized as a failure and discontinued. You are also skipping over some of the more problematic issues with the FCC proposal, such as how the cable companies must certify that 3rd party boxes maintain user privacy. I am not sure how the cable companies are supposed to do this, and it seems like the FCC is just using that requirement as a way to blame the cable companies when the 3rd parties inevitable do violate expectations of privacy. The FCC is doing this because the FCC has no authority to regulate the 3rd parties.
  - dsr_ 10y ago
    The FCC had authority to mandate CableCard; that's an API with an embedded hardware implementation. How do you force compliance? There are always ways. Remember the digital transition? There were carrots and sticks for broadcasters, TV manufacturers... Why do you think the FCC won't have authority to regulate the third parties? The FCC has jurisdiction over interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. I don't see why that would end at the demarcation between a TV service and a set-top box, app, recorder or TV, and history says it does not end there.
    - nickff 10y ago
      The digital transition wasn't an issue of carrots and sticks, it was an issue of 'we're taking the spectrum back, so deal with it'. The FCC owns the spectrum, so it had broad authority to do almost whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted to do it. The FCC can force the cable companies to comply with almost any regulation, but the issue is how you create the API. Do you vote on contentious issues? Do you have an FCC arbitrator/mediator? What happens when there is a conflict, or the API needs to be changed? What can the FCC do when an (unregulated) 3rd party messes with the API? The FCC doesn't think it has the authority to regulate third parties, which is exactly why its proposals require cable companies to certify that the third parties will follow FCC regulations. If the FCC had any authority to regulate third parties, they would; the FCC is not exactly restrained in its regulations. This is not conjecture, I heard an FCC commissioner explain that this was the reasoning.
      - bogomipz 10y ago
        The FCC doesn't own the spectrum. The spectrum is public a asset. The FCC is the administrator of that asset. I am not trying to nitpick but this is an important distinction. Originally broadcasters were allocated spectrum and in exchange were expected to fulfill some some basic responsibilities for the public good such as being required to show a certain amount of news content every day. This seems to have been forgotten but these crooked monopolists. They coax and fiber plant also uses public right aways in order to connect to households this is also a public asset. Their business model is predicated on having access to these public assets(right aways and spectrum.) and yet at every turn they financially gouge customers, provide a substandard experience and prevent citizen from having any choice.
Aelinsaar 10y ago
From the monopolists' perspective, I guess every day you delay can be measured in vast sums of money. Moreover, if they're aware of the reality that the "Set top box" has a very limited lifespan in the future, they may just be milking the market while they have it, and to hell with anything else.
- wmeredith 10y ago
  > I guess every day you delay can be measured in vast sums of money. Comcast's revenue stream generates about $9 million dollars per HOUR[1]. So yes, every day they delay nets them more money than most people can comprehend. That's not to say that all of their revenue is directly tied to their set top boxes, although a huge portion of it certainly is. It nicely illustrates their monstrous incentive for preserving the status quo every minute (worth $143,000) they can. [1]http://cmcsa.com/earnings.cfm http://cmcsa.com/earnings.cfm
  - Aelinsaar 10y ago
    I mean... I want to believe that I'd be able to say "My time is coming to an end" with that kind of revenue, but I doubt it. That is serious money.
- gumby 10y ago
  The economics of this business is just weird. Last year comcast gave me a deal: TV + Internet for much less than the price of internet service alone. A "special deal" for one year. I took it. The year was almost up so I called yesterday to cancel. Turns out I can renew this "special" deal, and it's still cheaper than IP service alone. And the agent said to just call again next year and they'll give it to me again. The TV boxes are in the closet -- the agent said if I returned them they would cancel the deal and I'd pay the list price for IP service. Ironically Nielsen selected my home as a place to track my "tv" viewing but when I told them we don't watch cable or broadcast they weren't interested. Every three months I have that conversation over again. What's funny is they just announced they had "found a way to track Netflix viewing" -- yet they could have been tracking it the same way they track other TV viewing: by asking people. But they don't. Hmm. BTW odious as Comcast is (and boy do they plumb the depths) I have to praise them for providing full routable IPv6 to every house. I know in Europe and SE Asia that's old hat, but for the US it's exotic.
MandieD 10y ago
Guessing that Comcast is willfully ignoring how cable TV works in Germany and presumably much of the rest of Europe. We have smartcard readers (and cards) that we slide into the appropriate slot on our TVs that do the decoding. I paid 4 EUR/mo. for mine because I knew I was moving, but could have bought it outright for less than 80 EUR. The optional external receiver instead of the smartcard reader was 100 EUR. Then again, even the most expensive cable package runs about 35 EUR/mo. There is no HBO, though.
- rhino369 10y ago
  Comcast already supports cablecard. They have to by law. The FCC proposed regulations go further than cable card.
  - nickff 10y ago
    Cablecard has been eliminated as a requirement by "Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization" (STELAR). It was eliminated because it had failed to increase competition in the set top box market, while increasing cost and energy consumption.
    - rhino369 10y ago
      Ah makes sense. I know Verizon still supported it last year. Do you know if cable companies are ending their support?
      - nickff 10y ago
        I think they are going to wait to see how this rule pans out before deploying their next generation of set-top boxes, which are unlikely to contain cable cards.
    - douche 10y ago
      I'll be a little irked if I have to stop using my HD Homerun tuner and go back to the atrocious Comcast set-top boxes.
AdmiralAsshat 10y ago
s/feasible/profitable
korethr 10y ago
I can understand Comcast's point. They're moving away from their QAM-based system, to an IP-based one, and one of the inherent assumptions of the design of the latter is that they own and control the network end-points that provide the video to the display device. Building a nation-wide multi-channel video distribution network is no small feat, and takes some non-trivial engineering work. Then along comes the FCC, and says they don't get to own and control the network end-points anymore, thereby throwing a massive wrench into the works, and messing up the assumptions upon which their network is architected. Large complex systems don't just magically change overnight because of a governmental decree, despite how much legislators and administrators might seem to wish so. It would take a great many man-hours to rebuild their current system to comply with the update. How many? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? More? I have no idea, but I do know it ain't gonna be a small number, never mind the monetary costs. And that's just the capital investment to get compliant. Ongoing support is also going to costly. And you can be confident that Comcast would then pass those costs on to their customers in the form of higher subscription fees, and high bring-your-own-device fees (or a corresponding use-our-device discount if the FCC prohibits the former).
- xenadu02 10y ago
  Hmmm... We seem to have done just fine with standards like C, C++, TCP, SQL, HTML, HTML5, CANVAS, OpenGL, WebGL, Ethernet, MPEG, etc. Somehow it seems like this is a problem of "will" rather than "way", don't you think? Comcast wants to own and control the interface with the customer. It makes them the powerful gatekeepers so they can extract as much rent as possible. It's like cell phone carriers before the iPhone. You had to go "kiss the ring" and beg for a chance to release a crappy Java applet. The carrier set the price ($15) and took most of the money. They also gave you non-optional feedback on all aspects of your app. None of the cable/satellite providers are innovating. There is far more money in charging $$ for a set-top box and choice is so limited there is no pressure to improve. Again, it's like ATT and the phone network. You could rent one kind of phone and you'll like it. Breaking their stranglehold on the phone network (another government mandate, despite the billions ATT spent building their network) enabled an explosion in choice and enabled regular people to get on the internet with modems. We literally wouldn't be posting on HN right now without the government forcing ATT to open their network. The FCC is trying to create a free market where none exists. The cable companies have been fighting against CableCard and these digital standards for over a decade, and very successfully too. Edit: You can down vote if you want, I used to work at a CLEC and the ILEC's IT department purposefully made things obtuse and pretended to be incompetent so they could throw up their hands and say "It's impossible!". As soon as we signed a separate commercial agreement (so SBC/ATT could claim the market was open and no regulation was necessary) suddenly their IT people were able to get projects done and roadblocks magically disappeared. Funny how that works.
galdosdi 10y ago
Actually, I'm willing to believe that a large cable monopoly's IT department is so incompetent and poorly run, that implementing this successfully is not likely for them. That's not a valid excuse though. A landlord ordered legally to fix a broken heater cannot avoid their duty by complaining "But I'm so BAD at working with heaters! They're confusing!"
- grecy 10y ago
  I worked in IT at a telco, and you are spot on. The IT department was incompetent and poorly run, and they couldn't implement anything new for less than 400% of budget (time and money) and it usually didn't work very well. Although, that's not the reason to not do something like this. The reason not to do something like this is because the bottom line is more important, and impacting that is not good.
  - devonkim 10y ago
    Bad IT is standard and expected for enterprise, period. I've spent years going around to different companies that fail to do some of the most basic best practices from 1995. Retention of decent engineers is impossible.
- iaw 10y ago
  I know someone who worked on the team to develop one of the 'next-gen' Comcast DVR units. The company is exactly what you'd expect but they apparently did have quite the competent engineering team. Not talking about IT here but the people that actually build the hardware and firmware for their proprietary boxes. That being said it is absolutely not in Comcast's financial interests to adhere to the FCC regs on this and I also suspect that Comcast isn't fully lying when it says the FCC regs are hard to comply with.
  - narrowrail 10y ago
    I thought the Arris Group supplied the hardware? I haven't had Comcast in a while, but when I did, Scientific Atlanta was the manufacturer. Has Comcast switched to internal HW development?
dsfyu404ed 10y ago
Come on. This is the FCC not the ATF or EPA. The FCC has historically been very good about reasonable, understandable (even to the layman) requirements. Comcast really doesn't have much of an argument here IMO
saquibhafiz 10y ago
comcast response tl;dr: "Our system is old and we would keep up with the new but we don't really want to lose money because of your so called laws and we have zero care about being consumer friendly."
pyrale 10y ago
I wonder what the tech crowd would say if government was to order Apple to release windows- and android-compatible OSes, or if it was to rewrite Google's Youtube API terms of use at its convenience. You guys seem to have a pretty heavy dislike to your cable providers, which is OK, but I wonder how you would react to similar requests towards tech companies.
- eridius 10y ago
  Cable providers are monopolies. In most markets, customers have literally zero choice as to what provider to use. This means that they need to accept a fair amount of government regulation, because there are no market pressures to act as corrective forces without government regulation. Meanwhile, the tech companies you listed are not monopolies (and when Microsoft did engage in monopolistic behavior, they were found to be violating antitrust and were subject to some regulation, e.g. no more bundling IE with Windows and making it difficult to get other browsers, etc).
  - rhino369 10y ago
    >Cable providers are monopolies. Cable video isn't anymore. There is typically one hardware cable company, two national satellite companies, two online streaming cable provides (SlingTv and PS-Vue), and many times a IPTV providers using telecom lines (Verizon or AT&T). I have a hell of a lot more choice in video tv than I do for say web search engines. Should google and bing be forced to provide searches over an API?
  - pyrale 10y ago
    Let's not lie to ourselves. Google has as close as it gets to having a monopoly. Monopolies are everywhere in our industry. For the last 5 years, the key questions to get funding were policed versions of: "can you build a monopoly" and "if we give you money, what will be your dumping strategy". And that behaviour is exemplified by e.g. the transportation market conquest by Uber. Imo, Microsoft's antitrust is not something that would happen again, because politicians now care about international power rather than domestic balance, aswell as the fact tech companies now invest significantly in lobbying.
givinguflac 10y ago
"It's not possible to document the information flows. Here, let me tell you how the information flows work so you'll get why I can't explain it."
technofiend 10y ago
Did they also stomp their feet and say "But I don't wannaaaaaaaa"? Just curious.
jwatte 10y ago
Comcast to world: "We can't be bothered to implement an API to comply with regulations, so we well fight the regulation. Meanwhile, we will fight tooth and nail against anyone else getting access to public rights of way in our service area!"
mankash666 10y ago
Other things Comcast & the cable industry deem infeasible: 1> Operating in an open market - they've lobbied against 2 cable providers in a zip code. 2> Providing reliable, high-speed service and realistic prices - US internet prices are among the highest in the developed world, while being woefully slow in comparison. 3> Moving with the times - heard of the 300 GB monthly cap? 4> Not subverting the competition - Cable companies have been known to throttle speeds to competing services like Netflix. 5> Protecting your privacy - Selling your data and usage patterns to 3rd parties
phkahler 10y ago
Before I dropped cable TV, I refused to subscribe anything that required a set top box. My house still has an antenna in the attic with a cable running down to the basement where an A/B switch will flip the whole house from cable to antenna. No extra boxes on any of my TVs. Granted, I never wanted pay per view anyway. WoW can still be used like that by just plugging the cable into the TV, but oddly you need a box to get "digital" channels outside the normal local ones. Of course that's another fucking scam because there haven't actually been analog broadcasts for 7 years in the US, yet the cable companies down-convert everything and then charge more to get it unaltered.

48 points by sciurus 10y ago

dsr_ 10y ago

Comcast is being willfully uncomprehending. The FCC is telling them to provide means to programmatically identify a subscriber, authorize the subscriber's device or program, get an available content list, and then receive a media stream. IP, QAM, fuzzy pen-and-ink sketches on vellum, whatever, as long as they document it well enough for anybody else to write to the spec. Comcast uses Lawyers; it's partially effective. If the FCC had more pull they would ask an industry consortium together with Public Knowledge and EFF to design an API, and then mandate the use of that API on all video systems. That would then collapse as the cable companies desperately want to avoid competing with each other.

nickff 10y ago
Most of the objections from the cable companies seem to be about DRM concerns, licensing (from studios), and ad-stripping. If 3rd parties are allowed to remove or replace ads, it will dramatically change cable television, and mean that consumers will have to pay for all the costs of television program production themselves, without the subsidy of advertisers. I am not sure whether that would be better or worse than the current model, but it is not obviously better. I am not sure that the FCC has the authority to mandate the creation of an API. Putting that aside, how exactly would you force agreement on an open API? What do you do if parties disagree? You can't always split the difference, and you may end up with a very limited API which could even be unworkable. This could end up like the cable card, which was eventually recognized as a failure and discontinued. You are also skipping over some of the more problematic issues with the FCC proposal, such as how the cable companies must certify that 3rd party boxes maintain user privacy. I am not sure how the cable companies are supposed to do this, and it seems like the FCC is just using that requirement as a way to blame the cable companies when the 3rd parties inevitable do violate expectations of privacy. The FCC is doing this because the FCC has no authority to regulate the 3rd parties.
- dsr_ 10y ago
  The FCC had authority to mandate CableCard; that's an API with an embedded hardware implementation. How do you force compliance? There are always ways. Remember the digital transition? There were carrots and sticks for broadcasters, TV manufacturers... Why do you think the FCC won't have authority to regulate the third parties? The FCC has jurisdiction over interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. I don't see why that would end at the demarcation between a TV service and a set-top box, app, recorder or TV, and history says it does not end there.
  - nickff 10y ago
    The digital transition wasn't an issue of carrots and sticks, it was an issue of 'we're taking the spectrum back, so deal with it'. The FCC owns the spectrum, so it had broad authority to do almost whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted to do it. The FCC can force the cable companies to comply with almost any regulation, but the issue is how you create the API. Do you vote on contentious issues? Do you have an FCC arbitrator/mediator? What happens when there is a conflict, or the API needs to be changed? What can the FCC do when an (unregulated) 3rd party messes with the API? The FCC doesn't think it has the authority to regulate third parties, which is exactly why its proposals require cable companies to certify that the third parties will follow FCC regulations. If the FCC had any authority to regulate third parties, they would; the FCC is not exactly restrained in its regulations. This is not conjecture, I heard an FCC commissioner explain that this was the reasoning.
    - bogomipz 10y ago
      The FCC doesn't own the spectrum. The spectrum is public a asset. The FCC is the administrator of that asset. I am not trying to nitpick but this is an important distinction. Originally broadcasters were allocated spectrum and in exchange were expected to fulfill some some basic responsibilities for the public good such as being required to show a certain amount of news content every day. This seems to have been forgotten but these crooked monopolists. They coax and fiber plant also uses public right aways in order to connect to households this is also a public asset. Their business model is predicated on having access to these public assets(right aways and spectrum.) and yet at every turn they financially gouge customers, provide a substandard experience and prevent citizen from having any choice.

Aelinsaar 10y ago

From the monopolists' perspective, I guess every day you delay can be measured in vast sums of money. Moreover, if they're aware of the reality that the "Set top box" has a very limited lifespan in the future, they may just be milking the market while they have it, and to hell with anything else.

wmeredith 10y ago
> I guess every day you delay can be measured in vast sums of money. Comcast's revenue stream generates about $9 million dollars per HOUR[1]. So yes, every day they delay nets them more money than most people can comprehend. That's not to say that all of their revenue is directly tied to their set top boxes, although a huge portion of it certainly is. It nicely illustrates their monstrous incentive for preserving the status quo every minute (worth $143,000) they can. [1]http://cmcsa.com/earnings.cfm http://cmcsa.com/earnings.cfm
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  I mean... I want to believe that I'd be able to say "My time is coming to an end" with that kind of revenue, but I doubt it. That is serious money.
gumby 10y ago
The economics of this business is just weird. Last year comcast gave me a deal: TV + Internet for much less than the price of internet service alone. A "special deal" for one year. I took it. The year was almost up so I called yesterday to cancel. Turns out I can renew this "special" deal, and it's still cheaper than IP service alone. And the agent said to just call again next year and they'll give it to me again. The TV boxes are in the closet -- the agent said if I returned them they would cancel the deal and I'd pay the list price for IP service. Ironically Nielsen selected my home as a place to track my "tv" viewing but when I told them we don't watch cable or broadcast they weren't interested. Every three months I have that conversation over again. What's funny is they just announced they had "found a way to track Netflix viewing" -- yet they could have been tracking it the same way they track other TV viewing: by asking people. But they don't. Hmm. BTW odious as Comcast is (and boy do they plumb the depths) I have to praise them for providing full routable IPv6 to every house. I know in Europe and SE Asia that's old hat, but for the US it's exotic.

MandieD 10y ago

Guessing that Comcast is willfully ignoring how cable TV works in Germany and presumably much of the rest of Europe. We have smartcard readers (and cards) that we slide into the appropriate slot on our TVs that do the decoding. I paid 4 EUR/mo. for mine because I knew I was moving, but could have bought it outright for less than 80 EUR. The optional external receiver instead of the smartcard reader was 100 EUR. Then again, even the most expensive cable package runs about 35 EUR/mo. There is no HBO, though.

rhino369 10y ago
Comcast already supports cablecard. They have to by law. The FCC proposed regulations go further than cable card.
- nickff 10y ago
  Cablecard has been eliminated as a requirement by "Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization" (STELAR). It was eliminated because it had failed to increase competition in the set top box market, while increasing cost and energy consumption.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    Ah makes sense. I know Verizon still supported it last year. Do you know if cable companies are ending their support?
    - nickff 10y ago
      I think they are going to wait to see how this rule pans out before deploying their next generation of set-top boxes, which are unlikely to contain cable cards.
  - douche 10y ago
    I'll be a little irked if I have to stop using my HD Homerun tuner and go back to the atrocious Comcast set-top boxes.

AdmiralAsshat 10y ago

s/feasible/profitable

korethr 10y ago

I can understand Comcast's point. They're moving away from their QAM-based system, to an IP-based one, and one of the inherent assumptions of the design of the latter is that they own and control the network end-points that provide the video to the display device. Building a nation-wide multi-channel video distribution network is no small feat, and takes some non-trivial engineering work. Then along comes the FCC, and says they don't get to own and control the network end-points anymore, thereby throwing a massive wrench into the works, and messing up the assumptions upon which their network is architected. Large complex systems don't just magically change overnight because of a governmental decree, despite how much legislators and administrators might seem to wish so. It would take a great many man-hours to rebuild their current system to comply with the update. How many? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? More? I have no idea, but I do know it ain't gonna be a small number, never mind the monetary costs. And that's just the capital investment to get compliant. Ongoing support is also going to costly. And you can be confident that Comcast would then pass those costs on to their customers in the form of higher subscription fees, and high bring-your-own-device fees (or a corresponding use-our-device discount if the FCC prohibits the former).

xenadu02 10y ago
Hmmm... We seem to have done just fine with standards like C, C++, TCP, SQL, HTML, HTML5, CANVAS, OpenGL, WebGL, Ethernet, MPEG, etc. Somehow it seems like this is a problem of "will" rather than "way", don't you think? Comcast wants to own and control the interface with the customer. It makes them the powerful gatekeepers so they can extract as much rent as possible. It's like cell phone carriers before the iPhone. You had to go "kiss the ring" and beg for a chance to release a crappy Java applet. The carrier set the price ($15) and took most of the money. They also gave you non-optional feedback on all aspects of your app. None of the cable/satellite providers are innovating. There is far more money in charging $$ for a set-top box and choice is so limited there is no pressure to improve. Again, it's like ATT and the phone network. You could rent one kind of phone and you'll like it. Breaking their stranglehold on the phone network (another government mandate, despite the billions ATT spent building their network) enabled an explosion in choice and enabled regular people to get on the internet with modems. We literally wouldn't be posting on HN right now without the government forcing ATT to open their network. The FCC is trying to create a free market where none exists. The cable companies have been fighting against CableCard and these digital standards for over a decade, and very successfully too. Edit: You can down vote if you want, I used to work at a CLEC and the ILEC's IT department purposefully made things obtuse and pretended to be incompetent so they could throw up their hands and say "It's impossible!". As soon as we signed a separate commercial agreement (so SBC/ATT could claim the market was open and no regulation was necessary) suddenly their IT people were able to get projects done and roadblocks magically disappeared. Funny how that works.

galdosdi 10y ago

Actually, I'm willing to believe that a large cable monopoly's IT department is so incompetent and poorly run, that implementing this successfully is not likely for them. That's not a valid excuse though. A landlord ordered legally to fix a broken heater cannot avoid their duty by complaining "But I'm so BAD at working with heaters! They're confusing!"

grecy 10y ago
I worked in IT at a telco, and you are spot on. The IT department was incompetent and poorly run, and they couldn't implement anything new for less than 400% of budget (time and money) and it usually didn't work very well. Although, that's not the reason to not do something like this. The reason not to do something like this is because the bottom line is more important, and impacting that is not good.
- devonkim 10y ago
  Bad IT is standard and expected for enterprise, period. I've spent years going around to different companies that fail to do some of the most basic best practices from 1995. Retention of decent engineers is impossible.
iaw 10y ago
I know someone who worked on the team to develop one of the 'next-gen' Comcast DVR units. The company is exactly what you'd expect but they apparently did have quite the competent engineering team. Not talking about IT here but the people that actually build the hardware and firmware for their proprietary boxes. That being said it is absolutely not in Comcast's financial interests to adhere to the FCC regs on this and I also suspect that Comcast isn't fully lying when it says the FCC regs are hard to comply with.
- narrowrail 10y ago
  I thought the Arris Group supplied the hardware? I haven't had Comcast in a while, but when I did, Scientific Atlanta was the manufacturer. Has Comcast switched to internal HW development?

dsfyu404ed 10y ago

Come on. This is the FCC not the ATF or EPA. The FCC has historically been very good about reasonable, understandable (even to the layman) requirements. Comcast really doesn't have much of an argument here IMO

saquibhafiz 10y ago

comcast response tl;dr: "Our system is old and we would keep up with the new but we don't really want to lose money because of your so called laws and we have zero care about being consumer friendly."

pyrale 10y ago

I wonder what the tech crowd would say if government was to order Apple to release windows- and android-compatible OSes, or if it was to rewrite Google's Youtube API terms of use at its convenience. You guys seem to have a pretty heavy dislike to your cable providers, which is OK, but I wonder how you would react to similar requests towards tech companies.

eridius 10y ago
Cable providers are monopolies. In most markets, customers have literally zero choice as to what provider to use. This means that they need to accept a fair amount of government regulation, because there are no market pressures to act as corrective forces without government regulation. Meanwhile, the tech companies you listed are not monopolies (and when Microsoft did engage in monopolistic behavior, they were found to be violating antitrust and were subject to some regulation, e.g. no more bundling IE with Windows and making it difficult to get other browsers, etc).
- rhino369 10y ago
  >Cable providers are monopolies. Cable video isn't anymore. There is typically one hardware cable company, two national satellite companies, two online streaming cable provides (SlingTv and PS-Vue), and many times a IPTV providers using telecom lines (Verizon or AT&T). I have a hell of a lot more choice in video tv than I do for say web search engines. Should google and bing be forced to provide searches over an API?
- pyrale 10y ago
  Let's not lie to ourselves. Google has as close as it gets to having a monopoly. Monopolies are everywhere in our industry. For the last 5 years, the key questions to get funding were policed versions of: "can you build a monopoly" and "if we give you money, what will be your dumping strategy". And that behaviour is exemplified by e.g. the transportation market conquest by Uber. Imo, Microsoft's antitrust is not something that would happen again, because politicians now care about international power rather than domestic balance, aswell as the fact tech companies now invest significantly in lobbying.

givinguflac 10y ago

"It's not possible to document the information flows. Here, let me tell you how the information flows work so you'll get why I can't explain it."

technofiend 10y ago

Did they also stomp their feet and say "But I don't wannaaaaaaaa"? Just curious.

jwatte 10y ago

Comcast to world: "We can't be bothered to implement an API to comply with regulations, so we well fight the regulation. Meanwhile, we will fight tooth and nail against anyone else getting access to public rights of way in our service area!"

mankash666 10y ago

Other things Comcast & the cable industry deem infeasible: 1> Operating in an open market - they've lobbied against 2 cable providers in a zip code. 2> Providing reliable, high-speed service and realistic prices - US internet prices are among the highest in the developed world, while being woefully slow in comparison. 3> Moving with the times - heard of the 300 GB monthly cap? 4> Not subverting the competition - Cable companies have been known to throttle speeds to competing services like Netflix. 5> Protecting your privacy - Selling your data and usage patterns to 3rd parties

phkahler 10y ago

Before I dropped cable TV, I refused to subscribe anything that required a set top box. My house still has an antenna in the attic with a cable running down to the basement where an A/B switch will flip the whole house from cable to antenna. No extra boxes on any of my TVs. Granted, I never wanted pay per view anyway. WoW can still be used like that by just plugging the cable into the TV, but oddly you need a box to get "digital" channels outside the normal local ones. Of course that's another fucking scam because there haven't actually been analog broadcasts for 7 years in the US, yet the cable companies down-convert everything and then charge more to get it unaltered.