Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday January 27 2017, @12:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the big-business-rules dept.

Ars Technica reports that nineteen Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives have written a letter (PDF) to the new chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), asking him to "close the docket" (end) a proposal regarding set-top boxes.

Tom Wheeler, the previous chair, had made the proposal, which he had touted by saying:

If adopted, consumers would no longer have to pay monthly fees to rent a box. Instead, they would be able to access their pay-TV content via free apps on a variety of devices, including smart TVs, streaming boxes, tablets and smartphones. Consumers would also enjoy a better viewing experience thanks to integrated search and new innovation that will flow from enhanced competitive choice.

The proposal (PDF) advocates that

Consumers should be able to choose how they access the Multichannel Video Programming Distributor's (MVPD's) – cable, satellite or telco companies [sic] – video services to which they subscribe. For example, consumers should be able to have the choice of accessing programming through the MVPD-provided interface on a pay-TV set-top box or app, or through devices such as a tablet or smart TV using a competitive app or software. MVPDs and competitors should be able to differentiate themselves and compete based on the experience they offer users, including the quality of the user interface and additional features like suggested content, integration with home entertainment systems, caller ID and future innovations.

[Continues...]

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association, a lobbying group representing the cable television industry, had criticised the proposal, saying (NPRM is short for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking):

Numerous parties have raised serious concerns with the NPRM's proposal, including more than 180 members of Congress, studios, networks, unions, independent and diverse content creators, directors, writers, record labels, small and large service providers, device manufacturers, and nationally-respected advocates of consumer privacy, disability access, diversity, energy efficiency, commerce, intellectual property, innovation, and labor. These parties have demonstrated the many legal, technical, and other failings of the NPRM's proposal.

related stories:
FCC Says It Will "Unlock the Set-Top Box"
After Setback, FCC Chairman Keeps Pushing Set-Top Box and Privacy Rules
Ajit Pai to Become New Head of the FCC
FCC Republican Wants to Let States Block Municipal Broadband


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Friday January 27 2017, @01:19AM

    by edIII (791) on Friday January 27 2017, @01:19AM (#459243)

    This is exactly what many feared would happen. Trump put somebody in charge of the FCC that would be just as happy to gut it. Specifically, every single part of it that helps the consumer and prevents corporations from bringing and end to the era of Freedom and equality on the Internet.

    It's kinda pointless here as killing the set-top box measure keeps their rental fees, but only exacerbates the reasons why people cut the cord in the first place.

    At the moment, the FCC has NOT declared that Internet communications like instant messaging, voice conference, and VoIP fall under CALEA. That could change extremely easily and then backdoors are required by law, and would most likely only benefit Verisign and a few others that operate the media switches.

    Welcome to a future where the Internet is purely owned by corporations and they can manipulate and oppress the packets in whatever fucking way they wish, coupled with a monitored and chaperoned experience. Piracy could very well be affected since the Feebs get there darkest desire: Backdoors into every citizen's hardware and software to search it for prosecutable offenses.

    In other words, the Internet will die under this administration along with free and private communications. Pip Pip. Hooray. Isn't the end of the world exciting?

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Redundant) by Sulla on Friday January 27 2017, @01:23AM

    by Sulla (5173) on Friday January 27 2017, @01:23AM (#459246) Journal

    Pretty sure Hill would have done this too. Big cable has deep pockets. At the end of the day I might not have agreed with him much, but Obama at least tried to not be a complete corporate shill some of the time.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @01:57AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @01:57AM (#459263)

      Hill?

      Is that Hillary? Or Anita Hill? Or somebody else?

      The thing is that the entire GOP is pulling Trump to be more corporate-friendly. There is literally no one in his party interested in the other direction.

      If Hillary had been elected there would have been plenty in the party pulling her to be less corporate friendly. Sanders, Warren, Ellison, etc. Sure there are more than enough corporate democrats. But the members of the party with the spotlight are better than that. They succeeded in making her officially abandon the TPP, they would not have made it easy for her to forfeit the FCC to big telecom. (FWIW Ajit Pai is a former Verizon in house lawyer).

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @04:30AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @04:30AM (#459316)

        If Hillary had won the election, there would have been nobody pulling her away from the donors. Sanders would have tried, but the only reason that the Dems got religion on any of this at all, was because they lost to Trump. And even there, it's questionable how much they really changed. Just look at the recent vote on that amendment about importing medication from Canada.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @09:33PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @09:33PM (#459718)

          Hillary wouldn't have made a difference.

          The only candidates that might have made a difference here were Sanders, Stein, and Barr. (Johnson would have gutted most of this stuff his first day in office, rather than first week.) However Sanders cowtowed to Clinton/the DNC and threw the election in support of her rather than teaming up with Stein, which might have bled enough votes that Trump wouldn't have won the electoral vote. Barr is almost as big a joke as Trump (she was also running for Israeli government at the same time, while having claimed in US campaign statements that she would be cutting ties between the two.)

          Personally given all that has happened, I would have voted we let Deez Nutz be president and at least we wouldn't have had a geriatric fool of whatever party ruining this country, but a kid so all the old people could blame it on the youngins ruining this country, rather than it pretty obviously being the fault of the boomers, and a burden their descendants will have to shoulder because they will all be dead before the consequences fully set in (unless we get lucky and a nuclear holocaust wipes this all clean... well dirty, but clean of the current human mess.)

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by driverless on Friday January 27 2017, @09:19AM

        by driverless (4770) on Friday January 27 2017, @09:19AM (#459390)

        Hill?

        Is that Hillary? Or Anita Hill? Or somebody else?

        He was referring to Hank Rutherford Hill, who has recently moved on from selling propane accessories.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Friday January 27 2017, @09:23AM

    by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday January 27 2017, @09:23AM (#459392) Journal

    Well this is what happens when you let a party put corruption and identity politics over the good of the people. If the party would have went with Bernie (who poll after poll showed stomping both HRC and DJT) we wouldn't be having this conversation now but they cared more about wall street and her genitals than the good of the country so there ya go.

    The worst part? Better get used to 8-12 years of right wing rule across the board in the USA as it appears instead of learning from their mistakes the DNC is gonna double down on the racist identity politics shit [youtube.com] which is gonna be about as popular as ass cancer in the coming years. Whether you agree with his politics or not Trump filled his speeches with what he was gonna DO, HRC filled hers with lists who who she hated. Hell I saw a reporter outside a Hillary rally ask her supporters "What exactly is Hillary for? What are her policies?" and they couldn't name shit.

    The only positive is the DNC turning into a giant regressive shitshow should leave a rather big opening for a third party like the Green party, something we in the USA has needed for a long time, but the DNC themselves? If they go the way they appear they are headed? They are done, just fucking done.

    --
    ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
    • (Score: 2) by donkeyhotay on Friday January 27 2017, @03:55PM

      by donkeyhotay (2540) on Friday January 27 2017, @03:55PM (#459513)

      I completely agree with your reasoning. I think Bernie Sanders could have defeated Donald Trump. He would have brought in enough of those working-class votes to win in states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Hell, even *I* would have voted for him, and I wouldn't even agree with all of his policies.

      The DNC. So condescending, they think "password" is a good enough password.

      • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday January 27 2017, @04:26PM

        by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday January 27 2017, @04:26PM (#459533) Journal

        What got me was the fucking arrogance of the DNC. Hillary had the highest dislikes in 08 and her numbers were worse in 2012 while Bernie in poll after poll stomped both her and Trump, did they give a fuck? Nope their attitude was "You'll take this corporate shill and you'll like it because she has a vagina and if you dare say shit you are (insert racist, misogynist,etc)" and look at what it got them, nobody but their liberal strongholds on the coasts would have shit to do with her, states that were on the border ran into the red as fast as they possibly could.

        And did they learn from their mistake? Nope just watch the video, if you were to replace white with black or jew? It would be considered hate speech in many places, I haven't heard so much blatant racist shit outside of a Klan rally and if that wasn't bad enough they are pushing for a new head of the DNC that is a Muslim that has even written several "Its da joos!" racist as fuck articles. That doesn't matter though because he is Muslim therefor if you criticize him "u be raciss!". Its the same toxic identity politics, the same racist shit that turned people off in 2016, it didn't fly last year and its not gonna fly in 2020. People are sick and tired of being told they are an "ist" if they don't follow the political narrative or that certain groups can't be criticized or debated because you should "check your privilege".

        Like I said the only positive is if the DNC goes down the SJW suicide route maybe we can get the Green party to take over because until someone takes an enema to the DNC and flushes all the corruption and identity politics shit? Yeah stick a fork they are just fucking done.

        --
        ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
  • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday January 27 2017, @09:22PM

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday January 27 2017, @09:22PM (#459714) Homepage Journal

    killing the set-top box measure keeps their rental fees, but only exacerbates the reasons why people cut the cord in the first place

    It doesn't matter. Cable is obsolete unless you're living in a valley or something. Now, in 1980 it was great. OTA TV had snow, ghosts, and a limited number of channels. Even in a city the size of St Louis or Orlando you got onlt five or six channels.

    Cable gave you those channels without ghosts and snow and audio static, plus half a dozen more that were uncensored and had no commercials. Ten bucks a month including HBO. Then the programming quality deteriorated in the late '90s; Discovery traded science for Trick My Truck, History went from the fall of Rome to space aliens. Cable channels now not only had commercials, there were ads on-screen during the programming.

    Then TV went digital, and cable was entirely obsolete. No snow, no ghosts, no static. Four times or more the bandwidth so we started getting more channels. I get twice as many channels now as cable gave me in 1980, and in 1080p resolution, and in a city of 100k, not Orlando.

    Every single reason to have cable TV disappeared when TV went digital. The set top box is dead. Nothing to see here (except 18 channels in Springfield and three times that many in St Louis).

    --
    mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org