5 ms·

GOP asks FCC to kill plan for helping customers avoid cable box rentals

17 points by dvdhnt 10y ago

spectrum1234 10y ago
Good news. What in the world is the government doing in the cable box business?
- wmf 10y ago
  Trying to protect people (does Google count as people?) from shitty monopolies. Not that it had a chance of working after the previous N attempts failed.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    That was kind of my first thought... cablecard sucked so badly, most of the devices to make it more usable didn't work with restricted content, and in the end it failed. All I could see happening is a weird convoluted standard that was so full of holes that even supporting various cable providers wouldn't allow much more freedom and would fail in the end. As much as I'd like to see a singular pvr option to rule them all rise up, I don't think I'd be happy with it even then. I still find it far easier to pay the cable/netflix etc tax (guilt, you know), and just torrent almost everything I watch.
    - alphabettsy 10y ago
      I think you mean major companies support of cablecard sucked so badly because they wanted it to fail. I actually had a TiVo with CableCard and it wasn't awesome, just didn't support on-demand.
      - tracker1 10y ago
        I tried it, so many channels (pretty much all HD) were tagged cannot record, so I returned the cablecard the next day.
        alphabettsy 10y ago
        I had issues with several channels, but overall loved TiVo at that point. The cable companies purposely crippled CableCard though, and crap like that is why we need consumer protection groups.
        tracker1 10y ago
        The issue is, that the proposed plan, like tfa and cablecard come from govt requirements... I don't see the plan in the article necessarily working out better for the consumers.
  - spectrum1234 10y ago
    Monopolies in cable are extremely rare (across the US). More importantly, the internet is adding more competition every month. A law across the board is a terrible idea because of this.
    - alphabettsy 10y ago
      Seems like you would mean extremely common. The last 4 places I lived across the US had only one provider option outside of satellite. Not to mention the facts don't support that assertion. Internet competition is irrelevant if the carriers are allowed to suppress competition with their own content by selectively enforcing data caps and using things like "traffic shaping" against companies like Netflix.
      - spectrum1234 10y ago
        Hulu, Netflix, Whatever Amazon has, Sling TV... So every time there isn't enough competition there needs to be laws saying what the monopolist must do? This is the opposite of the type of law you want in this situation.
        alphabettsy 10y ago
        If they are going to be allowed a monopoly there absolutely must be certain consumer protections, for example, every other utility you use at home. And the point is that people were being forced to have a cable box that isn't necessary. Should we allow companies to do whatever they want just because they can? Content competition means nothing if the ISP can limit your access to it. And no, don't overbroaden what I just said. We are talking about something specific.
jstewartmobile 10y ago
I know a lot of older people who will continue to be hyperconsumers until their dying day. They are in constant battles with the cable/phone/etc. companies over fine-print terms they signed without reading. They are also overwhelmingly pro-Trump republicans. I fully expect all of them to be burned by this at some point in time, and I also expect about half of them to still find some way to blame it on Obama--even in the year 2020! I'd also like to second spectrum1234's comment. None of those things are really necessities. There are not enough hours in the day or enough gold in the world to sustain a government that attempts to protect people from their own stupidity.
SturgeonsLaw 10y ago
> "Without a clear indication that the Commission rejects this current proposal, content creators will be hesitant to invest in high-quality video programs," they wrote to Pai Well if they're not willing to produce quality content, the Netflixes of the world will. Feel free to keep digging your own grave, cable companies.
scarface74 10y ago
I never thought that forcing cable companies to create apps for other devices was right. Forcing a company to develop software felt wrong. The issue is not that cable companies have a monopoly on delivering live tv to consumers. A consumer can get live tv from Sling, PS Vue, DirectTv Now and soon Hulu. They can purchase a $59 Roku stick for each tv and get all of the channels they want over the internet. The real issue is lack of competition when it comes to delivering internet that allows the cable company to have unreasonable data caps. There are also plenty of states that are passing laws that won't let cities build their own internet service. If more people had access to reasonable data limits they wouldn't need cable or the Sergio boxes. Luckily, I live in area served by Comcast and AT&T. I pay $70 a month for symmetrical 1Gbps internet and my house is wired for Gig E. I subscribed to Hulu, Sling, CBS All Access, Netflix (which I had when I had cable) and Amazon Prime. I also have a Plex Server. All six of our TVs have either Roku boxes or AppleTVs. If I had cable, I would be paying $50 extra per month just for box rentals and that doesn't include another $25 in HD Technology fees, Sports Access Fees, Network Access Fees, and other fees.
- alphabettsy 10y ago
  They were going to be required to essentially provide an API. It said nothing about forcing them to create client apps. "The original plan would have required pay-TV providers to make video programming available to the makers of third-party devices and software without the need for a CableCard."

17 points by dvdhnt 10y ago

spectrum1234 10y ago

Good news. What in the world is the government doing in the cable box business?

wmf 10y ago
Trying to protect people (does Google count as people?) from shitty monopolies. Not that it had a chance of working after the previous N attempts failed.
- tracker1 10y ago
  That was kind of my first thought... cablecard sucked so badly, most of the devices to make it more usable didn't work with restricted content, and in the end it failed. All I could see happening is a weird convoluted standard that was so full of holes that even supporting various cable providers wouldn't allow much more freedom and would fail in the end. As much as I'd like to see a singular pvr option to rule them all rise up, I don't think I'd be happy with it even then. I still find it far easier to pay the cable/netflix etc tax (guilt, you know), and just torrent almost everything I watch.
  - alphabettsy 10y ago
    I think you mean major companies support of cablecard sucked so badly because they wanted it to fail. I actually had a TiVo with CableCard and it wasn't awesome, just didn't support on-demand.
    - tracker1 10y ago
      I tried it, so many channels (pretty much all HD) were tagged cannot record, so I returned the cablecard the next day.
      - alphabettsy 10y ago
        I had issues with several channels, but overall loved TiVo at that point. The cable companies purposely crippled CableCard though, and crap like that is why we need consumer protection groups.
        tracker1 10y ago
        The issue is, that the proposed plan, like tfa and cablecard come from govt requirements... I don't see the plan in the article necessarily working out better for the consumers.
- spectrum1234 10y ago
  Monopolies in cable are extremely rare (across the US). More importantly, the internet is adding more competition every month. A law across the board is a terrible idea because of this.
  - alphabettsy 10y ago
    Seems like you would mean extremely common. The last 4 places I lived across the US had only one provider option outside of satellite. Not to mention the facts don't support that assertion. Internet competition is irrelevant if the carriers are allowed to suppress competition with their own content by selectively enforcing data caps and using things like "traffic shaping" against companies like Netflix.
    - spectrum1234 10y ago
      Hulu, Netflix, Whatever Amazon has, Sling TV... So every time there isn't enough competition there needs to be laws saying what the monopolist must do? This is the opposite of the type of law you want in this situation.
      - alphabettsy 10y ago
        If they are going to be allowed a monopoly there absolutely must be certain consumer protections, for example, every other utility you use at home. And the point is that people were being forced to have a cable box that isn't necessary. Should we allow companies to do whatever they want just because they can? Content competition means nothing if the ISP can limit your access to it. And no, don't overbroaden what I just said. We are talking about something specific.

jstewartmobile 10y ago

I know a lot of older people who will continue to be hyperconsumers until their dying day. They are in constant battles with the cable/phone/etc. companies over fine-print terms they signed without reading. They are also overwhelmingly pro-Trump republicans. I fully expect all of them to be burned by this at some point in time, and I also expect about half of them to still find some way to blame it on Obama--even in the year 2020! I'd also like to second spectrum1234's comment. None of those things are really necessities. There are not enough hours in the day or enough gold in the world to sustain a government that attempts to protect people from their own stupidity.

SturgeonsLaw 10y ago

> "Without a clear indication that the Commission rejects this current proposal, content creators will be hesitant to invest in high-quality video programs," they wrote to Pai Well if they're not willing to produce quality content, the Netflixes of the world will. Feel free to keep digging your own grave, cable companies.

scarface74 10y ago

I never thought that forcing cable companies to create apps for other devices was right. Forcing a company to develop software felt wrong. The issue is not that cable companies have a monopoly on delivering live tv to consumers. A consumer can get live tv from Sling, PS Vue, DirectTv Now and soon Hulu. They can purchase a $59 Roku stick for each tv and get all of the channels they want over the internet. The real issue is lack of competition when it comes to delivering internet that allows the cable company to have unreasonable data caps. There are also plenty of states that are passing laws that won't let cities build their own internet service. If more people had access to reasonable data limits they wouldn't need cable or the Sergio boxes. Luckily, I live in area served by Comcast and AT&T. I pay $70 a month for symmetrical 1Gbps internet and my house is wired for Gig E. I subscribed to Hulu, Sling, CBS All Access, Netflix (which I had when I had cable) and Amazon Prime. I also have a Plex Server. All six of our TVs have either Roku boxes or AppleTVs. If I had cable, I would be paying $50 extra per month just for box rentals and that doesn't include another $25 in HD Technology fees, Sports Access Fees, Network Access Fees, and other fees.

alphabettsy 10y ago
They were going to be required to essentially provide an API. It said nothing about forcing them to create client apps. "The original plan would have required pay-TV providers to make video programming available to the makers of third-party devices and software without the need for a CableCard."