4 ms·

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.

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.