That's fantastic news. The days of market monopolies (yes, many markets today are served by only one provider) are over. Why cable operators have had preferential treatment for years is beyond me, but suspect it has everything to do with campaign contributions.
Municipalities, like the United States before it with railroads, was too cheap to build out the cable infrastructure itself: so it left that to "the private sector" and since the cablers paid for the cables they had exclusive rights to their use in return for their expenditure in buying and installing them.
No magic cable fairy just made every household in a community be connected. That cost money, a LOT of money.
Comcast profit for 2015: $52 billion dollars. $52,000,000,000. In the 1990's when most of today's cable was laid, the cost was about 19 b billion for all companies.
It's easy to understand why cable companies want to control public opinion. Using words like "cable fairy" doesn't convince me that the cable companies aren't making obscene profits. Try to come up with some substantial proof that the cable companies are suffering and I'll take it all back. They are nearly monopolies, powerful, and with their control on media, have undue influence in public option about this matter. It's time that a federal agency stood up for the public good and I applaud their action.
The FCC has been saying this for 15 yrs, and it has not happen since the Cable operators and content owners have thrown up roadblock all the way. This was suppose to happen back in 2007 but the operators came up with all kinds of excuse how content could not be protect if consumers could buy their own boxes and have the cable operators authorize it. I can tell Cable operator pay off the cost of the STB in the 18 months of the fees they collect, after that it is all profit for them and they get to write the cost of box off their income over 7 yrs, you can see why they do not want this to happen.
I'll believe it when I see STB in best buy from companies other than the cable operators.
Municipalities, like the United States before it with railroads, was too cheap to build out the cable infrastructure itself: so it left that to "the private sector" and since the cablers paid for the cables they had exclusive rights to their use in return for their expenditure in buying and installing them.
No magic cable fairy just made every household in a community be connected. That cost money, a LOT of money.
Comcast profit for 2015: $52 billion dollars. $52,000,000,000. In the 1990's when most of today's cable was laid, the cost was about 19 b billion for all companies.
It's easy to understand why cable companies want to control public opinion. Using words like "cable fairy" doesn't convince me that the cable companies aren't making obscene profits. Try to come up with some substantial proof that the cable companies are suffering and I'll take it all back. They are nearly monopolies, powerful, and with their control on media, have undue influence in public option about this matter. It's time that a federal agency stood up for the public good and I applaud their action.
1. They're not using the same cables from the 1990s. 2. Comcast is more than a cable provider. 3. Guess who allowed Comcast to buy NBC? The US federal government, the same one that's now "giving" you "rights".
That's fantastic news. The days of market monopolies (yes, many markets today are served by only one provider) are over. Why cable operators have had preferential treatment for years is beyond me, but suspect it has everything to do with campaign contributions.
Actually it had nothing to do with campaign contributions. It had to do with something called local franchise agreements. Companies lobbied cities for exclusive guarantees to local residents in exchange for them spending the money to install cable lines and other telecom infrastructure, and they refused to provide service without the guarantees.
Hope this effort to break the cable provider strangle hold succeeds. It would open up a new market, bring more innovation and price competition at the same time. Long overdue!!!
Also, this is bad for Apple, especially if they get into original programming, since they will likewise have to offer their services to third party set-top boxes. SO I could theoretically buy a box from Amazon and watch my iTunes and Apple content on it.
That's an interesting point. If cable companies have to allow 3rd party set-top boxes access to their content, shouldn't Apple be required to allow 3rd party devices to access their content? Why should I have to buy an Apple TV to watch an iTunes movie rental?
My TiVo can already do pretty much what this FCC proposal seems to ask for. It can also play content from Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc. Pretty much the only thing it can't play is iTunes content.
I'll believe it when I see STB in best buy from companies other than the cable operators.
I doubt it would make any difference. How many people also rent their cable modem from the cable company? $10/month. You can buy your own cable modem for around $70. Comcast even has a web page recommending which modems will work on their system. And yet the majority of people still blindly pay the monthly fee.
Set-top boxes would be easier to market than a cable modem by offering a variety of services or unique UIs. But TiVo has been doing that for a long time now. And yes, you can already buy them at Best Buy and other retailers. Yes, TiVo has a subscription fee which gets you programming guide info, system updates, mobile apps, so it has a longer break-even period (about 3 years); but any other set-top box will likely have similar fees or revenue streams. Or you'll never get system updates (like Android phones). Or the cable company will charge an access fee.
I don't think simply having an internet connection entitles you to free HBO for life...
I agree but at some point there needs to be a consolidation of services. I pay for internet, I pay for cable, I pay for phone data...on and on. I understand I do not have to but in reality I do if I want all of those types of services that are fueled by data.
But those services are all different things. Yes, they are all 1's and 0's today -- but originally they were all run over separate infrastructure and they are still different services really.
Your phone service allows you to connect to anyone on a copper, cell phone, or VoIP-based telephone,
Cable TV is a service of programming and the delivery of the service,
Data is simply access to the Internet -- content provided by someone else.
bdkennedy thinks he should get free TV because he subscribes to Internet -- completely ignoring that TV content has to be paid for somehow, and commercials doesn't provide enough revenue. Especially since you know he's going to want free DVR abilities (with commercial skip) to be a part of the TV service.
Telephones don't magically link up to each other by themselves. If everyone used VoIP phones then I could understand the idea that phone and Internet are the same -- but that's not the case. The majority of telephone calls travel over network bandwidth that is separate from the routing of the Internet, interact with phone switches in local telco offices across the country, get piped into cell phone towers, etc. This is more involved than just plugging into the Net.
Consolidation is honestly the exact opposite of what we need. It's how we got into the current mess.
When cable companies became broadband providers AND television distributors -- they suddenly had a conflict of interest with people using their internet service to watch Netflix.
When cable companies went digital and started having to supply cable boxes to homes -- they now owned the service endpoint and had a way to bilk people on a per-TV basis. Remember when folks had to get analog descramblers for their cable TV? People today seem to have forgotten that nice period of time after that but before digital cable. When people bought "cable ready" TVs and they paid one fee for their entire house's services. Cable converters are only a requirement now because of DRM. If you've ever been lucky enough to be in an area that had "ClearQAM" cable service you'll understand. This is just like when Ma Bell used to charge people per-connected telephone in their home.
When telephone companies started offering high speed internet -- they suddenly had a conflict of interest with people using VoIP phone to make LD calls for much cheaper over the Internet.
When any provider started offering "triple play" services they now had a reason to screw anyone who only wanted one service but not another -- either making a service a requirement for others (need phone for DSL / need cable TV to get cable modem) or making the price of a single service so high a consumer couldn't afford to go with different companies for each.
All situations where power was consolidated in a way that made too much control in the hands of the wrong people. Separating the infrastructure from the provider and from the content goes a long way to leveling the playing field for the consumer.
Comcast profit for 2015: $52 billion dollars. $52,000,000,000. In the 1990's when most of today's cable was laid, the cost was about 19 b billion for all companies.
It's easy to understand why cable companies want to control public opinion. Using words like "cable fairy" doesn't convince me that the cable companies aren't making obscene profits. Try to come up with some substantial proof that the cable companies are suffering and I'll take it all back. They are nearly monopolies, powerful, and with their control on media, have undue influence in public option about this matter. It's time that a federal agency stood up for the public good and I applaud their action.
1. They're not using the same cables from the 1990s. 2. Comcast is more than a cable provider. 3. Guess who allowed Comcast to buy NBC? The US federal government, the same one that's now "giving" you "rights".
1. With those obscene profits, your argument about the poor cable companies spending big bucks laying out cable doesn't hold water. They seem to be "getting by" and don't need a "cable fairy" to help them maintain their lines. 2. Agree. Not part of the argument. 3. Agree. That was reprehensible and should be reversed. Thank goodness they are on track now.
The way TV and cable programming is now, I would think that the cable companies would jump at the chance to have 3rd party companies to carry there programming. This is a WIN for both the consumer and the cable providers.
More 3rd party providers + cable providers = more content choices.
The way TV and cable programming is now, I would think that the cable companies would jump at the chance to have 3rd party companies to carry there programming. This is a WIN for both the consumer and the cable providers.
More 3rd party providers + cable providers = more content choices.
I don't think any cable company would follow you logic, which depends on people first getting a third party device and then deciding, "hey, I'll get cable since my new set top box supports it." But in reality, it's quite the opposite. People have cable and a cable box, and then may consider getting a set top box which could give them access to other, competing, content. This is exactly what cable companies don't want. You are asking them to move from a "household monopoly," which is supported by people generally not wanting to have to deal constantly switching between different devices for different services, to having to directly compete with Netflix, Amazon, etc, all on the same set top box. Once people have access to that they would start paring down their cable subscriptions and the cable company would stand to lose large amounts of revenue.
AppleTV Apps for each subscribed channel. Rich App experiences, each of which include a LIVE section. A separate GUIDE App that lets you browse/play What's On from the LIVE sections of those Apps.
Oh and I need to be able to selectively add/remove channels from my subscription. All billed and managed by Apple.
Wake me up when they figure it out, and that is the user experience.
This issue sounds suspiciously similar to the FBI demand and court order for Apple to crack their own software. The FCC (which arguably shouldn't even exist) should have no power to interfere with private property or these businesses. Let competition and consumer preference be Darwin and the fittest will ultimately survive. If there is any part to be played, it should be the eradication of monopolies government created in the first place!
That's fantastic news. The days of market monopolies (yes, many markets today are served by only one provider) are over. Why cable operators have had preferential treatment for years is beyond me, but suspect it has everything to do with campaign contributions.
Municipalities, like the United States before it with railroads, was too cheap to build out the cable infrastructure itself: so it left that to "the private sector" and since the cablers paid for the cables they had exclusive rights to their use in return for their expenditure in buying and installing them.
No magic cable fairy just made every household in a community be connected. That cost money, a LOT of money.
And the monopolies created were clearly a violation against consumers. THANKS GOVERNMENT! There are no natural monopolies, despite arguments to the contrary from anti-free market Statists.
Also, this is bad for Apple, especially if they get into original programming, since they will likewise have to offer their services to third party set-top boxes. SO I could theoretically buy a box from Amazon and watch my iTunes and Apple content on it.
How do you read that into this FCC directive? Apple having its own original programming doesn't equate to being a cable company offering multiple channels from multiple content-creators through a "must-use-to-watch-said-channels" device that comes with an additional monthly service fee. Apple would itself be a content-creator by getting into the original programming business, and content-creators are not obligated to make their programming available on all services (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, iTunes, etc).
Also, this is bad for Apple, especially if they get into original programming, since they will likewise have to offer their services to third party set-top boxes. SO I could theoretically buy a box from Amazon and watch my iTunes and Apple content on it.
That's an interesting point. If cable companies have to allow 3rd party set-top boxes access to their content, shouldn't Apple be required to allow 3rd party devices to access their content? Why should I have to buy an Apple TV to watch an iTunes movie rental?
My TiVo can already do pretty much what this FCC proposal seems to ask for. It can also play content from Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc. Pretty much the only thing it can't play is iTunes content.
Because iTunes isn't itself a monopolistic service of live TV and first-run programming like cable TV is. Other services iTunes competes with (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon for TV and movies, Spotify, Pandora, and many others for music) also offer the same content that iTunes does, and Apple doesn't restrict those services from creating apps for Apple's hardware (iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Mac, Apple TV). But that doesn't in any way obligate Apple to offer iTunes on other platforms just because those others decided to do so.
It's all about choice: with a cable provider, you have 1 choice from which to pick your cable box: the cable company itself. Your alternative is AT&T Uverse, which also requires a box, which you can only get from AT&T. In other words, in pretty much every case you have no choice but to rent your box from your provider. With iTunes, you have alternative choices (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, Spotify, Pandora, etc., etc.). If you don't like Apple's lock-in of iTunes to Apple hardware, you have alternatives that don't have that lock-in. Therefore, you have choice.
TiVo is not a "buy once and you're done" cable box, you have to pay a monthly service fee. The FCC wants people to be able to buy a box once and not be forced to pay an ongoing monthly fee.
That's an interesting point. If cable companies have to allow 3rd party set-top boxes access to their content, shouldn't Apple be required to allow 3rd party devices to access their content? Why should I have to buy an Apple TV to watch an iTunes movie rental?
My TiVo can already do pretty much what this FCC proposal seems to ask for. It can also play content from Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc. Pretty much the only thing it can't play is iTunes content.
Because iTunes isn't itself a monopolistic service of live TV and first-run programming like cable TV is. Other services iTunes competes with (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon for TV and movies, Spotify, Pandora, and many others for music) also offer the same content that iTunes does, and Apple doesn't restrict those services from creating apps for Apple's hardware (iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Mac, Apple TV). But that doesn't in any way obligate Apple to offer iTunes on other platforms just because those others decided to do so.
It's all about choice: with a cable provider, you have 1 choice from which to pick your cable box: the cable company itself. Your alternative is AT&T Uverse, which also requires a box, which you can only get from AT&T. In other words, in pretty much every case you have no choice but to rent your box from your provider. With iTunes, you have alternative choices (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, Spotify, Pandora, etc., etc.). If you don't like Apple's lock-in of iTunes to Apple hardware, you have alternatives that don't have that lock-in. Therefore, you have choice.
TiVo is not a "buy once and you're done" cable box, you have to pay a monthly service fee. The FCC wants people to be able to buy a box once and not be forced to pay an ongoing monthly fee.
Comments
It's easy to understand why cable companies want to control public opinion. Using words like "cable fairy" doesn't convince me that the cable companies aren't making obscene profits. Try to come up with some substantial proof that the cable companies are suffering and I'll take it all back. They are nearly monopolies, powerful, and with their control on media, have undue influence in public option about this matter. It's time that a federal agency stood up for the public good and I applaud their action.
The FCC has been saying this for 15 yrs, and it has not happen since the Cable operators and content owners have thrown up roadblock all the way. This was suppose to happen back in 2007 but the operators came up with all kinds of excuse how content could not be protect if consumers could buy their own boxes and have the cable operators authorize it. I can tell Cable operator pay off the cost of the STB in the 18 months of the fees they collect, after that it is all profit for them and they get to write the cost of box off their income over 7 yrs, you can see why they do not want this to happen.
I'll believe it when I see STB in best buy from companies other than the cable operators.
2. Comcast is more than a cable provider.
3. Guess who allowed Comcast to buy NBC? The US federal government, the same one that's now "giving" you "rights".
My TiVo can already do pretty much what this FCC proposal seems to ask for. It can also play content from Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc. Pretty much the only thing it can't play is iTunes content.
Set-top boxes would be easier to market than a cable modem by offering a variety of services or unique UIs. But TiVo has been doing that for a long time now. And yes, you can already buy them at Best Buy and other retailers. Yes, TiVo has a subscription fee which gets you programming guide info, system updates, mobile apps, so it has a longer break-even period (about 3 years); but any other set-top box will likely have similar fees or revenue streams. Or you'll never get system updates (like Android phones). Or the cable company will charge an access fee.
- Your phone service allows you to connect to anyone on a copper, cell phone, or VoIP-based telephone,
- Cable TV is a service of programming and the delivery of the service,
- Data is simply access to the Internet -- content provided by someone else.
bdkennedy thinks he should get free TV because he subscribes to Internet -- completely ignoring that TV content has to be paid for somehow, and commercials doesn't provide enough revenue. Especially since you know he's going to want free DVR abilities (with commercial skip) to be a part of the TV service.Telephones don't magically link up to each other by themselves. If everyone used VoIP phones then I could understand the idea that phone and Internet are the same -- but that's not the case. The majority of telephone calls travel over network bandwidth that is separate from the routing of the Internet, interact with phone switches in local telco offices across the country, get piped into cell phone towers, etc. This is more involved than just plugging into the Net.
Consolidation is honestly the exact opposite of what we need. It's how we got into the current mess.
- When cable companies became broadband providers AND television distributors -- they suddenly had a conflict of interest with people using their internet service to watch Netflix.
- When cable companies went digital and started having to supply cable boxes to homes -- they now owned the service endpoint and had a way to bilk people on a per-TV basis. Remember when folks had to get analog descramblers for their cable TV? People today seem to have forgotten that nice period of time after that but before digital cable. When people bought "cable ready" TVs and they paid one fee for their entire house's services. Cable converters are only a requirement now because of DRM. If you've ever been lucky enough to be in an area that had "ClearQAM" cable service you'll understand. This is just like when Ma Bell used to charge people per-connected telephone in their home.
- When telephone companies started offering high speed internet -- they suddenly had a conflict of interest with people using VoIP phone to make LD calls for much cheaper over the Internet.
- When any provider started offering "triple play" services they now had a reason to screw anyone who only wanted one service but not another -- either making a service a requirement for others (need phone for DSL / need cable TV to get cable modem) or making the price of a single service so high a consumer couldn't afford to go with different companies for each.
All situations where power was consolidated in a way that made too much control in the hands of the wrong people. Separating the infrastructure from the provider and from the content goes a long way to leveling the playing field for the consumer.2. Agree. Not part of the argument.
3. Agree. That was reprehensible and should be reversed. Thank goodness they are on track now.
More 3rd party providers + cable providers = more content choices.
AppleTV Apps for each subscribed channel.
Rich App experiences, each of which include a LIVE section.
A separate GUIDE App that lets you browse/play What's On from the LIVE sections of those Apps.
Oh and I need to be able to selectively add/remove channels from my subscription. All billed and managed by Apple.
Wake me up when they figure it out, and that is the user experience.
It's all about choice: with a cable provider, you have 1 choice from which to pick your cable box: the cable company itself. Your alternative is AT&T Uverse, which also requires a box, which you can only get from AT&T. In other words, in pretty much every case you have no choice but to rent your box from your provider. With iTunes, you have alternative choices (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, Spotify, Pandora, etc., etc.). If you don't like Apple's lock-in of iTunes to Apple hardware, you have alternatives that don't have that lock-in. Therefore, you have choice.
TiVo is not a "buy once and you're done" cable box, you have to pay a monthly service fee. The FCC wants people to be able to buy a box once and not be forced to pay an ongoing monthly fee.