I agree. The price for cable TV is absurd when everything is included. The prices they advertise aren't all that bad and I'd probably be willing to pay it. Then you find out that on top of that price you have a $15/month DVR rental fee and another $10 per room you want to watch TV in and the price can darn near double.
I agree. The price for cable TV is absurd when everything is included. The prices they advertise aren't all that bad and I'd probably be willing to pay it. Then you find out that on top of that price you have a $15/month DVR rental fee and another $10 per room you want to watch TV in and the price can darn near double.
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
- Feb 4, 2009
- 35,862
- 17,403
- 136
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Where is the change that says third party boxes are eliminated and are no longer a consideration?
I think people are reading too much into the change about 3rd party access.
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
If it doesn't say it in there, then it isn't in there. The previous version discussed was a draft proposal, this is the one that was voted on and accepted. If there is no provision for 3rd party software support, then the only way 3rd party hardware will work is if the cable companies deem it to be acceptable, as they are the entities responsible to write the software and give their blessings. And what functionality the software allows from the hardware is, again, what the cable companies feel is appropriate.
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
- Feb 4, 2009
- 35,862
- 17,403
- 136
I think the disappointment is over it being a Carrier app. I still say its a big step in the right direction and in a way I agree commercials and such need to be kept in or not replaced by a ad that generates money for google or apple or whomever else. The broadcaster and the content creator deserve the ad revenue the others do not
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
It was always a software solution. The thing is, the original intent was for STB manufacturers to come up with compatible software on their own, meeting a shared compatibility standard that defines the base capabilities of this new software approach. This includes devices like Roku as well as TiVo. And the software could be a third party not related to the hardware manufacturer, all that mattered was that it met the standards for both functionality and security.
In essence, it was a software-based cablecard solution, one that was even worlds better.
And then they neutered it by leaving the cable companies to be the ones to create and support the software. I hope the rules further detail the required functionality for this software. And again, people like me on small regional cable companies are going to be last to the party, and suffer lackluster features.
Instead of a neutral platform like the CableCard (which, again, this mandate was originally a cablecard replacement), which any manufacturer and software developer could support, we're handed an even worse vision where the cable companies now have literally all the control and ability to neuter popular or potentially game-changing products. I don't see something like the HDHomeRun Prime becoming a thing with this new model. I could be wrong, would LOVE to be wrong, in that perhaps cable companies do make an app for some software device that functions just like a networked CableCARD tuner that then dishes cable TV access to multiple other devices regardless of software onboard (so long as it can tie into that networked device, much like software that supports CableCARD tuners like the Prime).
Perhaps there is a market for that and, with a market potential, the cable companies might get behind it. But I think this solution is going to need some amendments to make that a potential reality.
- Apr 8, 2001
- 32,539
- 260
- 126
My main problem would be that without further clarification, this would just mean expanding IPTV which I have absolutely zero interest in. It would be paying the same for an inferior product. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to tack on a per device charge to make it cost more.
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
- Feb 4, 2009
- 35,862
- 17,403
- 136
App needs to be free, I doubt the FCC would tolerate a per item charge. You could also just stay with what you have regarding IPTV. Assuming there isn't a major change at the FCC with the next President. Not a perfect solution but this is a good first step.
Last edited:
- Apr 8, 2001
- 32,539
- 260
- 126
Looks like I'm not the only one thinking it's no longer about the boxes.
http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/frank-pallone-fcc-set-top-box-1201858477/
http://www.investors.com/news/techn...nt-be-hurt-by-fcc-opening-up-market-analysts/
http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/frank-pallone-fcc-set-top-box-1201858477/
http://www.investors.com/news/techn...nt-be-hurt-by-fcc-opening-up-market-analysts/
disappoint
Lifer
- Dec 7, 2009
- 10,132
- 382
- 126
No more monopoly on feeding your addiction to fiction?
Was the monopoly the real problem or our addiction to fiction? After all higher costs would act to dissuade you from feeding your addiction to fiction. Then what would you turn to if not other forms of fiction to feed your addiction? Reality? Now that would cause some of you to do more good in the world fixing real problems and others doing more harm in the world creating real problems.
Perhaps some might fear the latter. If they are even aware of it.
Was the monopoly the real problem or our addiction to fiction? After all higher costs would act to dissuade you from feeding your addiction to fiction. Then what would you turn to if not other forms of fiction to feed your addiction? Reality? Now that would cause some of you to do more good in the world fixing real problems and others doing more harm in the world creating real problems.
Perhaps some might fear the latter. If they are even aware of it.
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
So even books are bad? Mmmkay. howabout no? The world is a shitty place, thus our need for escapism. It's been around since the dawn of man for a reason.
It can also be inspirational.
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
- Feb 4, 2009
- 35,862
- 17,403
- 136
So even books are bad? Mmmkay. howabout no? The world is a shitty place, thus our need for escapism. It's been around since the dawn of man for a reason.
Disappoint is just playing moonbeams role, try to bring a discussion into and endless confusing rabbit hole that's totally unrelated to the topic but completely related to psychology.
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
- Feb 4, 2009
- 35,862
- 17,403
- 136
I think he's saying the app is free to consumers but not free to hardware makers. Cable could say it costs $750 per device to license it to work and $50 per year for software updates to keep it working. Essentially make the pricing identical to renting just you have to pay for hardware failures.
*I think*
ControlD
Diamond Member
- Apr 25, 2005
- 5,440
- 44
- 91
- Apr 8, 2001
- 32,539
- 260
- 126
One article talks about no more fear about current box maker losing buisness and the other is about the app not affecting box use.
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
Yeah, the cable lobby came down hard on the FCC crew and got them to rewrite the proposal to ensure they aren't really hurt in the end.
I thought better of Tom Wheeler, but I guess even he has to succumb to pressure from within the FCC, the other members who'd rather big business keeps on ticking.
It's really a joke of a proposal at this point, utterly pointless. Apps will be free but we'll have to pay for increased hardware costs almost surely. And they'll probably be very restrictive in which devices end up getting their support. A company like Roku is likely going to be uninterested in asinine licensing fees when there entire bottom line is based on simple hardware and zero licensing.
It should be third parties making the software, and paying for any licensing. That means they'd pass it onto consumers directly, only those consumers who specifically want said application or device designed for that use. Multipurpose devices are unlikely to hop onto this if licensing is a big issue.
This started as a way to make a better CableCARD replacement. Instead it turned into a joke that's utterly restrictive and will benefit very few.
Here's to hoping they make some major revisions again, perhaps even scrapping this bullshit and going back to the drawing back to get something like their original proposal.
- Apr 8, 2001
- 32,539
- 260
- 126
The only use of an app I see is being able to watch my TV signal on my phone wherever I am. Current licensing crap prevents that, so removing that would be good.
As far as what this was initially proposed and intended to do, provide the consumer a cheaper alternative through a free competitive market for providing the hardware backend of your in house TV signal distribution, it's turned into an absolute joke.
As far as what this was initially proposed and intended to do, provide the consumer a cheaper alternative through a free competitive market for providing the hardware backend of your in house TV signal distribution, it's turned into an absolute joke.
Last edited:
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
The powers of the Cable Lobby are insane. Wheeler has been hard on them and seriously wants to scale back their influence but he may be alone in that fight, and he needs allies. And I bet a lot of this is now trying to be dragged out in hopes of a new President bringing in a more cable-friendly FCC chairman before any proposal like this can be finalized.
poofyhairguy
Lifer
- Nov 20, 2005
- 14,612
- 318
- 126
Honestly I am not upset one bit. Cable will simply kill itself as people (especially young people) learn to live without it. Any regulations would have kept them in the game longer, and maybe even have entrenched their business model. I much prefer a world where people subscribe from the direct sources of their content (HBO, Netflix, Amazon, etc.) and cable eventually becomes something old people waste money on.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter