• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

FCC: It’s Time to Unlock the Set-Top Box Market

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

giga

Member
Pretty big deal. Tom Wheeler just published this op-ed: http://recode.net/2016/01/27/its-time-to-unlock-the-set-top-box-market/

Thanks to advances in technology, American consumers enjoy unprecedented choice in how they view entertainment, news and sports programming. You can pretty much watch what you want, where you want, when you want. But there’s one glaring exception in the competitive video marketplace: The “set-top box.”

Today, 99 percent of pay-TV customers lease set-top boxes from their cable, satellite or telco providers. Pay-TV subscribers spend an average of $231 a year to rent these boxes, because there are few meaningful alternatives.

If you’ve ever signed up for a $99-a-month bundle for cable, phone and Internet and then wondered why your bill is significantly higher, this is a big reason. Even when the company has recovered the cost of the box, you must continue to pay for it. Altogether, U.S. consumers spend a whopping $20 billion a year to lease these devices. In fact, according to a recent analysis, over the past 20 years, the cost of cable set-top boxes has risen 185 percent while the cost of computers, televisions and mobile phones has dropped by 90 percent.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Twenty years ago, Congress mandated that when consumers connect to a pay-TV service they should have the same ability to choose their equipment, just as they do when signing up for phone service. The Federal Communications Commission did in fact issue regulations to open the market, but they are woefully out of date and based on 20-year-old technology. As a consequence, consumers have limited choices for commercially available set-top boxes, so an overwhelming majority of consumers lease a box from their pay-TV service that doesn’t interface well with the wealth of video content online. To receive streaming Internet video, it is necessary to have a smart TV, or to watch it on a tablet or laptop computer that, similarly, do not have access to the channels and content that pay-TV subscribers pay for. The result is multiple devices and controllers, constrained program choice and higher costs.

Historically, issues like security and copyright have made opening up the set-top box market a challenge. Fortunately, advances in technology have made meeting those challenges and fulfilling this mandate achievable. For example, today’s smart TVs prove that we can preserve all the security and copyright protections of the set-top box without that actual box.

This week, I am sharing a proposal with my colleagues to tear down the barriers that currently prevent innovators from developing new ways for consumers to access and enjoy their favorite shows and movies on their terms. The new rules would create a framework for providing device manufacturers, software developers and others the information they need to introduce innovative new technologies, while at the same time maintaining strong security, copyright and consumer protections. Nothing in this proposal changes a company’s ability to package and price its programming to its subscribers, or requires consumers to purchase new boxes.

We’ve been here before.

Decades ago, if you wanted to have a landline in your home, you had to lease your phone from Ma Bell. There was little choice in telephones, and prices were high. The FCC unlocked competition and empowered consumers with a simple but powerful rule — consumers could connect the telephones and modems of their choice to the telephone network. Competition and game-changing innovation followed, from lower-priced phones to answering machines to technology that is the foundation of the Internet.

In 2007, the Commission opened up wireless networks to non-carrier-provided devices. You can now choose which smartphone or tablet you want to use. Similarly, you’ve been able to choose your own cable modem and Wi-Fi router for years.

Should pay-TV continue to be an exception? I believe, and Congress has made clear, the answer is no. You should have choices in how you access the video programming you are paying for, as well.

That’s why my proposal will pave the way for a competitive marketplace for alternate navigation devices, and could even end the need for multiple remote controls, allowing you to use one for all of the video sources you use. Innovation will drive more options for user-friendly menus and search functions as well as expand access to programming created by independent and diverse voices. Just as online searches today lead consumers to a breadth of information, so, too, can improved search functions lead consumers to a variety of video content that is buried behind guides or available on video services you can’t access with your set-top box today.

The proposal is about one thing: Consumer choice. You should have options that competition provides. It’s time to unlock the set-top box market — let’s let innovators create, and then let consumers choose.
Click to expand...

Surprise:

QabbCdP.png
 
It's pretty notable these charges don't happen with the pay TV services in pretty much any other market in the world. The problem is the lack of government intervention to prevent local monopolies in the US, and anything else is just tinkering around the edges.
 
Mindwipe said:
It's pretty notable these charges don't happen with the pay TV services in pretty much any other market in the world. The problem is the lack of government intervention to prevent local monopolies in the US, and anything else is just tinkering around the edges.
Click to expand...

Yup. The problem is so much bigger than the fees for equipment. That's only happening due to the monopolies these companies are allowed to have by local governments. I'll gladdly support this step though. It's a baby step in the right direction at least.
 
I believe we should be free from shitty motorola set-top boxes (if you haven't cut the cord, that is)
 
I love the initiative but it'll never get off the ground with the current major players. We'll just have to sit around and wait for Netflix and services like Sony's Vue become more appealing to replace the current model.

I wonder if Dish is still mulling over flipping the switch for 100% digital access-anywhere TV for all channels on their network?
 
This is a nice step for cable TV and very needed. Tom Wheeler getting work done. Now get started on local loop unbundling and fix the internet in the USA.
 
It's time for open source Android-based set-top boxes that works with all providers, so as long as you login to the service.

As illegal as it is, Android IPTV boxes are killing it and when I see these illegal activities doing better than legal activities, it makes me sad.

I signed up with Rogers Cable thinking their basic box will atleast have HDMI port. NOPE. FUCKING NOPE. The box is the SAME that I remember 15 years ago with shitty interface and shitty guide and remote and slow loading and slow channel surfing, and it's pathetic. Other boxes are additional $10 or more per month on top of your bill, which is hilariously the cost of these illegal Android IPTV boxes.

Fucking Rogers/Cable companies. The lack of wireless solution is also pissing me off for cable. Why not have a Hub at home, and provide ability to have cable tv wirelessly in any room? Not all rooms have cable connections. It also does not work on TV without cable box anymore. You could get all the basic channels before without a cable box, now thats not the case.

Pathetic.
 
It seems Wheeler has been a good choice for the people. I know people were worried due to his previous experience but so far so good it seems
 
Comcast's cable boxes (I think it's called the X1) are pretty damn decent nowadays.

They should just face reality and work even harder to make the X1 better and offer to let people buy them instead of the stupid rental system.
 
I haven't had cable in awhile, when I finally visited someone who had a cable box I was shocked at how little the interface and design has changed. It was like stepping into a time machine.
 
shagg_187 said:
It's time for open source Android-based set-top boxes that works with all providers, so as long as you login to the service.

As illegal as it is, Android IPTV boxes are killing it and when I see these illegal activities doing better than legal activities, it makes me sad.

I signed up with Rogers Cable thinking their basic box will atleast have HDMI port. NOPE. FUCKING NOPE. The box is the SAME that I remember 15 years ago with shitty interface and shitty guide and remote and slow loading and slow channel surfing, and it's pathetic. Other boxes are additional $10 or more per month on top of your bill, which is hilariously the cost of these illegal Android IPTV boxes.

Fucking Rogers/Cable companies. The lack of wireless solution is also pissing me off for cable. Why not have a Hub at home, and provide ability to have cable tv wirelessly in any room? Not all rooms have cable connections. It also does not work on TV without cable box anymore. You could get all the basic channels before without a cable box, now thats not the case.

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

And give up on those sweet, sweet cable installation fees??
 
This would be amazing if it happened. Cable companies should be all for this imo. Back in the 90s when I was a kid we had cable in every room in the house. These days we rent 1 box. I'd be much more likely to keep paying for cable if I could go back to having it in every room.
 
Those things are so horrible,

Terrible UIs, big, bulky, and they use a lot of power too.

Horrible devices.

Too bad the Cable companies fucked over cable card.
 
Man, whatever this Cox box is it is pure fucking trash. My U-Verse box was decent, this shit feels like if I opened it I'd find a flip-phone powering it.
 
Good on the FCC. I got sick of Verizon's Quantum boxes (which may eventually be good but were hot garbage through at least September) and went to a Tivo Bolt. Which is an immense improvement but when I see other sorts of interfaces for video, the Tivo still feels dated.

Saving $30 a month on boxes though!
 
I have basic digital and have to use this incredibly shitty box. Slow, unresponsive, poor image quality, low resolution, no digital outputs lol.

At least if the market was open I could plop down $99 on a box that would work with any tier cable package I had and while the signal wouldn't be HD, the GUI of the box itself could put out 1080p through HDMI and operate smoothly.

Also: just cancelled my cable to keep just the internet but they told me to save the most money and also keep my 'blast speeds' I have to keep this dumb box, switch to bare bones TV service, and be on a 1 year contract.

Fuck Comcast.

Edit: digital basic, internet, and a sports package was $135 after fees and taxes, and they told me now it will just be $80 for TV and the same speed internet.
 
The Scientific Atlantic boxes are around $500 in Canada and are all tied to cable providers. I don't feel like those devices are worth anywhere near that amount.
 
entremet said:
Those things are so horrible,

Terrible UIs, big, bulky, and they use a lot of power too.

Horrible devices.

Too bad the Cable companies fucked over cable card.
Click to expand...

I believe my new "X1" box is completely digital too, and effectively "streaming" - so I see image quality get worse at peak times and many channels (especially Starz for some reason) simply don't work. And there's a custom UI notification saying "try again later" which is plainly a bandwidth issue.
 
SyNapSe said:
It seems Wheeler has been a good choice for the people. I know people were worried due to his previous experience but so far so good it seems
Click to expand...

I think it would be interesting to go back to the time when Obama appointed him and look through the wails of doom and chorus of dissent. Maybe Obama knew something we didn't, but for someone whose career was based on lobbying for the telecomms industry he seems to have done a lot of good in the FCC.

Reminds me of the West Wing episode, where they "out" a secret supporter of regulation.
 
I've been saying this for the last 2 years whenever the discussion about cable and cable plans come up. Hardware costs are killer and how they're making so much of their bread and butter.

Here's the thing, the cable industry WILL win this. They effectively killed CableCard and they never allowed Tru2Way to get going.
 
TarpitCarnivore said:
I've been saying this for the last 2 years whenever the discussion about cable and cable plans come up. Hardware costs are killer and how they're making so much of their bread and butter.

Here's the thing, the cable industry WILL win this. They effectively killed CableCard and they never allowed Tru2Way to get going.
Click to expand...

CableCard was before Netflix, Amazon, and HBOGo came into the picture. They're probably wishing they supported it now...
 
Fucking good. I think my parents pay almost 8 bucks a box. It's like 30 something a month for them. I'd much rather just buy my own given the option.
 
I just want smaller, faster boxes. My TWC box is huge and slow as fuck and has an ugly ui. It's ridiculous. Cable boxes should be the size of streaming boxes like Apple TV or Fire TV.
 
Navigating most boxes is like entering a Geocities portal. You can almost hear the dial-up tone. And they wonder why people go to streaming alternatives instead of just using on demand. Stagnation on all fronts, technological and infrastructure.
 
Cable companies are large and powerful. This is good news but at the end of the day it is up to the consumer to make a difference.
 
Notice how we are in a new golden age of movies and TV, with netflix, hulu, amazon services and by producing their own content. These companies basically are just about their strangle hold, it has nothing to do with giving good media.
 
My general impression of Tom Wheeler is positive. He seems like he's interested in pushing pro-consumer policy. I'm glad to see it.

My anecdote, my girlfriend's parents recently changed their cable provider and got the new, proprietary boxes installed. The new one has a bright, bright, really fucking bright blue light on the front that stays on, even when you're not watching TV. Makes it pretty annoying to sleep in that room. The solution is to put something in front of the box that blocks the light, but then it also blocks the remote from working. So you're constantly moving this thing around and it's a minor pain in the butt. So anything that works against that, I'm in favor of.
 
shagg_187 said:
It's time for open source Android-based set-top boxes that works with all providers, so as long as you login to the service.

As illegal as it is, Android IPTV boxes are killing it and when I see these illegal activities doing better than legal activities, it makes me sad.

I signed up with Rogers Cable thinking their basic box will atleast have HDMI port. NOPE. FUCKING NOPE. The box is the SAME that I remember 15 years ago with shitty interface and shitty guide and remote and slow loading and slow channel surfing, and it's pathetic. Other boxes are additional $10 or more per month on top of your bill, which is hilariously the cost of these illegal Android IPTV boxes.

Fucking Rogers/Cable companies. The lack of wireless solution is also pissing me off for cable. Why not have a Hub at home, and provide ability to have cable tv wirelessly in any room? Not all rooms have cable connections. It also does not work on TV without cable box anymore. You could get all the basic channels before without a cable box, now thats not the case.

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

What, you don't want to pay $30/month for a NextBox?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll
FCC bans foreign routers in the USA
30
690
thefool replied
Apple prepares to enter the low-cost laptop market for the first time (Bloomberg)
2 3
148
3K
Signalis replied
Amazon banned a book, it is now in the top 5 best seller list
2
55
841
delirium trigger replied
Mike Flanagan set to remake The Mist
2
73
960
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
Break Ups Can Be Hard But It Was Time To Leave....
24
320
John Bilbo replied
Top Bottom