http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/02/18/fcc-approves-rules-process-set-top-boxes/80551100/

The Federal Communications Commission has taken the first step to opening up the pay TV set-top box marketplace.

The five-member commission Thursday voted 3-2 to begin the process of crafting possible rules that could give consumers new devices and apps to access and manage pay-TV programming and other content. The vote went along party lines with Chairman Tom Wheeler and commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel (Democrats) voting to approve, while commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly voted against.

Congress in 2014 instructed the agency to increase set-top box competition and Wheeler has argued that such action could decrease costs for consumers. "Consumers deserve a break and a choice," he said prior to Thursday's vote.

Set-top box rental fees coast consumers more than $200 annually, Rosenworcel noted, adding that the "clunky set-top box and its many-buttoned remote have not evolved at the same pace" as smartphones.

Pai commiserated with consumers, saying that he owns three set-top boxes and admitting "they are clunky and expensive and I feel the pain each and every month when I pay my bill."

However, he said the goal of the proposal is misguided because technology actually has allowed consumers choices beyond pay TV. "Our goal should not be to unlock the box; it should be to eliminate the box. If you are a cable customer and you don’t want to have a set-top box, you shouldn’t be required to have one," he said. "This goal is technically feasible, and it reflects most consumers’ preferences—including my own."

Implementation of approved rules could take more than three years, he said. "Just think about what three years means in the dynamic video marketplace. Thirty-six months ago, there was no such thing as the Google Chromecast or Amazon Fire TV Stick," he said.

Even if the rules are enacted and pay TV providers open their system to third-party devices and apps, Pai said, "technology could render all of that work obsolete by the time it’s ready to roll out."

Opposition group The Future of TV Coalition, members of which include AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, as well as the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, has promised to fight new rules with legal challenges if necessary. Concerns raised include protection of consumer privacy and the intellectual property of the content delivered via pay TV systems.

"We believe that once the Commissioners review a full record reflecting these harms, they will determine that this kind of technology mandate is both destructive and wholly unnecessary," the group said in a statement released after the event.

Consumer choice is evolving in the current marketplace, said Randolph J. May, President of the Free State Foundation, a free market think tank. "You don't need to be a videophile to know that consumers now have many video choices available other than the traditional cable, satellite, and telephone video offerings," he said.

The FCC has begun the process of establishing an "ill-conceived proposal for a costly new government-mandated and government-designed video navigation device," he said. "Another prime example of regulatory policy run amok."

Consumer advocacy groups support new rules. "Users will benefit, and the law, the business case, and the technological realities all support the FCC's proposal," said John Bergmayer, Senior Staff Attorney at Public Knowledge in a statement.

In a separate measure, the commission also voted to look into barriers that producers of independent and diverse programming face in getting on pay TV systems.

deal. Basically we might not need cable boxes in the future but would be able to have the content go directly to the TV or another device, but we'd still be paying the cable companies for that content. They could just up their rates a bit to cover the $5-10 per month they are charging for box rental fees.

their tech available, which could allow companies like Google, Amazon, etc. to make their own cable boxes (or incorporate the tech into existing things like Chromecast) so that you don't have to get your cable from Comcast, Frontier, DirecTV, etc.

it should make your cable cheaper and more customizable.

obviously, we're moving to a place sooner or later where no cable box exists.

or you're misunderstanding what this is.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

content still provided from the major cable companies?

Please forgive my ignorance. I'm not seeing why those other companies would need cable company technology to make their own content available - they are already doing that now through streaming or whatever else. If they are using the cable company technology to make cable boxes that get content from the cable companies, then the consumer is still gonna be paying for that content...I don't get it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/fcc-cable-box-vote-2016-2

The Federal Communications Commission just voted to end cable companies' control over the set-top box market.

The new rules will mandate that cable companies share necessary information with third-party manufacturers. This would enable other hardware makers to build and sell competitor devices to what the cable companies offer.

Today, most customers have to rent set-top boxes from their cable providers. These uninspiring devices cost the average American household $231 a year in additional charge on their cable bill, according to a Re/code essay by FCC chairman Tom Wheeler arguing for the change.

During arguments before the vote Thursday, Republican-appointed commissioners argued that the rule was irrelevant in a world in which many people get video over the internet. Commissioner Ajit Pai said it would become an unnecessary burden:

Right now we are en route to eliminating the need for a set top box altogether, and apps can turn the iPad or phone into a navigation device ... The commission should be encouraging those efforts. But this proposal would do the opposite. It would divert the industry's energies from app development and toward the slog of complying with the new regulatory scheme for unwanted hardware.

The proposal has faced a strong backlash from the cable industry, which makes $20 billion a year on its rented cable boxes, according to Reuters. Comcast argued in an online post that the new regulations would hurt consumers by making it harder for cable companies to innovate.

At the same time, other companies in the tech market have shown an interest in getting into the set-top box game. Google demonstrated a system for congressional staffers days after Wheeler's announcement that could replace traditional cable boxes — an event cable companies strongly objected to in an email. Apple has also shown an interest in the cable box market in the past

It's cool because if you have a ton of TVs in your house you won't need to be renting a box for each TV. But if you are still paying for content the cable companies will just jack up the prices an extra $10 per month to cover what they are losing.

but aren't the cable companies just content aggregators?

it seems to me if we get to the point where other people are making boxes then they'd be getting the content from the networks, and selling it to us at lower prices due to simple competition or a la carte pricing?

the ideal i suppose, as mentioned, is to get to the point where there is no box at all.

content is still coming from the cable providers then there isn't a big change. I guess it's kinda like internet and cable modems - you can either rent a modem from the internet service provider or you can buy your own outright. This change is giving the consumer choice on their box like you have a choice on your modem. But you are still paying the cable company for content the same way you are paying the ISP for internet access and bandwidth.

So yeah, maybe in the future the "cable box" will just be built into the TVs that we buy so we don't need separate hardware. Still gotta pay for content though.

so unless the boxes are costing way more than i realize i don't think it changes much of anything.

the only thing i could think of and i'm not sure if this is implied or not, is that maybe cable companies will be able to cross over each other's territories. if that's the case, then there'd be more competition which could help with costs but they haven't explicitly said this will be the case.

http://www.youtube.com/user/gumzization
twitter: @BrosefMalone

Lest you forget the FCC is allowing the encryption of basic channels that are broadcast in your area and making you get a box even if you have just the most basic cable.

Combine that with the CCI Flag ABUSE and they're pretty much making sure you can't use your PC as a DVR.

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

I'm sure it sucks if your provider where you use has problems with it, but I haven't run across an issue with it yet.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>I'm sure it sucks if your provider where you use has problems
>with it, but I haven't run across an issue with it yet.
>
Before I switched to OTA only I had hacked my Tivo HD to ignore the CCI flags (removing an chip, added a custom one) , and I found dozens of reports of cable companies wrongfully copy protecting shows that were required to be copy-able.

At least I'm able to find almost everything on the net - no matter what the protection was set to.

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection