5 ms·

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

by 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.
bogomipz 10y ago
I'm not understanding your comment. A QAM tuner provides the modulating/decoding of the RF signal over coax. If they are moving away from this then fine but why does that design have "inherent assumptions" that "they own and control the network end-points that provide the video to the display device."? So they can continue to charge people $10 a month in perpetuity? That's about the only reason for that assumption. I certainly can't think of a technical one. Its hard to read a comment like this and find it any way credible: "Comcast argued that "running our network code directly on third-party devices without our application [is] not feasible." Running our "network code"? What? What does even mean? Thats like saying the "system is down." It's the kind of crap that customer service reps say to people when they have no clue why something isn't functioning. The cable companies have zero credibility at this point. This is about continuing to gouge people that it that have no other choice in getting bits delivered into their home in 2016.
- gumby 10y ago
  > A QAM tuner provides the modulating/decoding of the RF signal over coax. If they are moving away from this then fine but why does that design have "inherent assumptions" that "they own and control the network end-points that provide the video to the display device."? The old QAM systems broadcast metadata (i.e. channel info) on one channel -- if you wanted an update just have your hardware keep watching until it passes by. Comcast's network is, I believe, an IPv6 system with a bunch of terminals and a set of servers at the core like some big enterprise network. None of which justifies their refusal, which is well above layer 7
  - forgottenpass 10y ago
    Comcast's network is, I believe, an IPv6 system with a bunch of terminals and a set of servers at the core like some big enterprise network. If my cable tech was correct, the cable box is such a thin client that every button press on the remote is processed remotely rather than on the cable box. Considering a packet can circumnavigate the planet faster than their goddamn cableboxes will register a button press, I tend to believe it.
- korethr 10y ago
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
>Large complex systems don't just magically change overnight because of a governmental decree This a million times. Its scary how people applaud draconian or at least, short sighted, legislation and regulations as long as those those policies are used against the "bad guys." They don't realize how much power this gives government and how easily government can victimize business, kill jobs, and hurt the economy over the whims of a couple regulators. I'm no Comcast fan, in fact I'm sure I hate them, but expecting them to just be able to magically implement this stuff overnight is a little much. Have you seen tech surveys or interviews with congressmen, fcc types, and bureaucrats? They seem to have a CSI view of technology which is scary to me. I don't think they truly understand what they're asking for in some/many cases. They just follow the political winds and know what to say and do to advance their careers in the government. Let's remember the failure of the cablecard. This was a big FCC decree. No one uses it. There's just so much choice between providers, satellite, streaming, etc that these things just never caught on. All these card readers and the back-end implementation were done for what exactly? That said, when regulations are absolutely need they should be done. Are these needed? Lets assume so. How much is the government paying for all the extra cost these regulations will give to Comcast? Nothing? I can't imagine the government coming into my place of business and tossing out a decree like this. It would surely bankrupt us. Comcast will just pass the cost increase to the consumer just like it did with the cable card. Maybe we shouldn't be applauding all regulations without question anymore, even when they're used against our "enemies."
phkahler 10y ago
>> 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. Let us recall what cable television was - a way to expand the reach of broadcast television. They've deviated quite a bit from that initial assumption to the point that their network is not compatible with your TV without having their equipment in your home.

by korethr 10y ago

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.

bogomipz 10y ago

I'm not understanding your comment. A QAM tuner provides the modulating/decoding of the RF signal over coax. If they are moving away from this then fine but why does that design have "inherent assumptions" that "they own and control the network end-points that provide the video to the display device."? So they can continue to charge people $10 a month in perpetuity? That's about the only reason for that assumption. I certainly can't think of a technical one. Its hard to read a comment like this and find it any way credible: "Comcast argued that "running our network code directly on third-party devices without our application [is] not feasible." Running our "network code"? What? What does even mean? Thats like saying the "system is down." It's the kind of crap that customer service reps say to people when they have no clue why something isn't functioning. The cable companies have zero credibility at this point. This is about continuing to gouge people that it that have no other choice in getting bits delivered into their home in 2016.

gumby 10y ago
> A QAM tuner provides the modulating/decoding of the RF signal over coax. If they are moving away from this then fine but why does that design have "inherent assumptions" that "they own and control the network end-points that provide the video to the display device."? The old QAM systems broadcast metadata (i.e. channel info) on one channel -- if you wanted an update just have your hardware keep watching until it passes by. Comcast's network is, I believe, an IPv6 system with a bunch of terminals and a set of servers at the core like some big enterprise network. None of which justifies their refusal, which is well above layer 7
- forgottenpass 10y ago
  Comcast's network is, I believe, an IPv6 system with a bunch of terminals and a set of servers at the core like some big enterprise network. If my cable tech was correct, the cable box is such a thin client that every button press on the remote is processed remotely rather than on the cable box. Considering a packet can circumnavigate the planet faster than their goddamn cableboxes will register a button press, I tend to believe it.
korethr 10y ago

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

>Large complex systems don't just magically change overnight because of a governmental decree This a million times. Its scary how people applaud draconian or at least, short sighted, legislation and regulations as long as those those policies are used against the "bad guys." They don't realize how much power this gives government and how easily government can victimize business, kill jobs, and hurt the economy over the whims of a couple regulators. I'm no Comcast fan, in fact I'm sure I hate them, but expecting them to just be able to magically implement this stuff overnight is a little much. Have you seen tech surveys or interviews with congressmen, fcc types, and bureaucrats? They seem to have a CSI view of technology which is scary to me. I don't think they truly understand what they're asking for in some/many cases. They just follow the political winds and know what to say and do to advance their careers in the government. Let's remember the failure of the cablecard. This was a big FCC decree. No one uses it. There's just so much choice between providers, satellite, streaming, etc that these things just never caught on. All these card readers and the back-end implementation were done for what exactly? That said, when regulations are absolutely need they should be done. Are these needed? Lets assume so. How much is the government paying for all the extra cost these regulations will give to Comcast? Nothing? I can't imagine the government coming into my place of business and tossing out a decree like this. It would surely bankrupt us. Comcast will just pass the cost increase to the consumer just like it did with the cable card. Maybe we shouldn't be applauding all regulations without question anymore, even when they're used against our "enemies."

phkahler 10y ago

>> 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. Let us recall what cable television was - a way to expand the reach of broadcast television. They've deviated quite a bit from that initial assumption to the point that their network is not compatible with your TV without having their equipment in your home.