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

Related Stories

FCC Republican Wants to Let States Block Municipal Broadband 14 comments

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler is going to have a fight on his hands if he tries to pre-empt state laws that limit the growth of municipal broadband networks.

Matthew Berry, chief of staff to Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai, argued today that the FCC has no authority to invalidate state laws governing local broadband networks. In a speech in front of the National Conference of State Legislatures, Berry endorsed states' rights when it comes to either banning municipal broadband networks or preventing their growth. He also argued that the current commission, with its Democratic majority, should not do something that future Republican-led commissions might disagree with.

[Section 706 of The Telecommunications Act] http://www.psc.state.fl.us/publications/telecomm/trilogy/universa/706.aspx

FCC Says It Will “Unlock the Set-Top Box” 31 comments

Jon Brodkin over at Ars Technica is reporting on the FCC's proposal (pdf) to require pay TV providers to make content available to third-party devices.

From the article:

The FCC is planning for a software-based, cardless replacement for CableCard. Without needing a physical card that plugs into a third-party set-top box, consumers would be able to get TV channels on tablets, smart TVs, or set-top boxes that they can buy from other companies instead of renting a box from a cable company.

"Consumers should be able to choose how they access the Multichannel Video Programming Distributor's (MVPDs)—cable, satellite, or telco companies—video services to which they subscribe," the FCC's summary of the proposal said. "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."

The proposal summary says the goal is to "unlock the set-top box."

Unsurprisingly, cable operators were nonplussed by the FCC's proposal. Previous coverage of this issue at Ars Technica details the cable industry's take on this:

[Continued.]

After Setback, FCC Chairman Keeps Pushing Set-Top Box and Privacy Rules 11 comments

After a rare setback, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler is still pushing for votes on plans to reform the cable TV set-top box market and impose new privacy rules on broadband providers.

The FCC was scheduled to vote on the cable TV plan at its last meeting on September 29 but removed it from the agenda when the commission's Democratic majority couldn't agree on all the details. Last-minute negotiations aren't uncommon before FCC meetings, but this was a rare case of Wheeler not having enough votes to move forward with a controversial agenda item.

The cable TV proposal—which would require TV providers to make video applications for third-party set-top boxes—is not on the agenda for next week's FCC meeting. But it could theoretically be passed at any time, as commissioners can vote on it between meetings. It's not clear whether a vote is imminent, but Wheeler touted the plan again in an op-ed on CNET yesterday.

"There is currently a proposal before the FCC that would end the set-top box stranglehold," Wheeler wrote. "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 TV plan has faced persistent opposition from the cable industry, even though the FCC changed it to assuage some of the industry's concerns. Industry opposition hasn't stopped the FCC from approving other controversial rules, such as the reclassification of broadband and imposition of net neutrality regulations. But in this case, the vote was delayed because Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel seems to be concerned about how cable company applications would be licensed to third-party device makers.


Original Submission

Ajit Pai to Become New Head of the FCC 37 comments

Several news sites are reporting that Donald Trump is looking to elevate Ajit Pai to head up the FCC:

Ajit Pai, a Republican Federal Communications Commission member and foe of net neutrality regulation, will be named to head the agency, according to a person familiar with the transition.

Pai has often dissented as FCC Democrats voted for tighter regulations, including the 2015 open internet, or net neutrality, decision that forbids internet service providers from unfairly blocking or slowing web traffic. The rule opposed by AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. is among those likely to be reversed by president Donald Trump's FCC, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analysts.

Additional information at Politico and Reuters.


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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @01:13AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @01:13AM (#459239)

    Tom Wheeler tried to make the settop box thing too complicated.

    The cable companies are already able to obtain boxes at a good price.
    The only thing the FCC needed to do was to let the customers buy the boxes already in their houses from the cable company at their current value.

    If the only choice is the complicated system or giving up, the giving up is a good idea,
    but the right things to do is to fix the choice, not bend to industry pressure and give up.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @04:14AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @04:14AM (#459306)

      I'd like to know how much the cableco pays for those cable boxes. I'll bet they get them for less than $100 each. My cableco charges $15 a month rental for each box, they recoup the cost after renting them for about 7 months. After that, it's pure profit. Lets say there's a million cable boxes being rented in one area, L.A. for example. That's an easy $10M profit every year just for a frigging cable box. It looks like D.C. just got bought by Comcast, Cox, and AT&T.

      • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday January 27 2017, @05:29AM

        by TheGratefulNet (659) on Friday January 27 2017, @05:29AM (#459329)

        there's nothing expensive in the cable boxes.

        my WAG: less than $20 in parts, when bought in quantity. the chassis is probably the most expensive part.

        --
        "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
      • (Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Saturday January 28 2017, @02:33PM

        by JeanCroix (573) on Saturday January 28 2017, @02:33PM (#459884)

        It looks like D.C. just got bought by Comcast, Cox, and AT&T.

        Just got bought by them? Oh ho ho ho... where have you been for the last thirty years?

    • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday January 27 2017, @06:30AM

      by davester666 (155) on Friday January 27 2017, @06:30AM (#459339)

      No. We need boxes that aren't designed and crippled by the cable company.

      • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday January 27 2017, @09:34PM

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday January 27 2017, @09:34PM (#459719) Homepage Journal

        Who is "we"? Don't lump me in the ignorant camp. We don't need boxes, PERIOD. Cable became obsolete when TV went digital. There is absolutely no non-stupid reason (okay, one*) to have cable in the 21st century.

        * If you're in a mountainous area, or that part of West Virginia where radio waves are illegal [wikipedia.org], you still need cable.

        --
        mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    • (Score: 2) by tibman on Friday January 27 2017, @03:11PM

      by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2017, @03:11PM (#459486)

      No, we need our own boxes. The reason is because there are anti-features that customers currently don't have a choice about. I had my own cable modem, router, switch, and wfi ap and the cable company was constantly pestering me about "upgrading" to their box. Only their box also created a second wifi that was accessible to other people. They can also see how many devices are connected to the network and so on. I changed to a local phone company and have been much happier. Only 20Mb DSL but unlimited usage and they are rolling out fiber (keep fingers crossed!).

      --
      SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
  • (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.
    • (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
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @02:25AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @02:25AM (#459270)

    Cable and satellite providers are shit companies with horrible service. When you finally get sick of being abused by them you simply cancel service and tell them to fuck off. If they lose enough customers they'll be forced to lower prices or improve service. I don't understand why everyone acts like they can't survive without TV...

    • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday January 27 2017, @03:01AM

      by GungnirSniper (1671) on Friday January 27 2017, @03:01AM (#459282) Journal

      There's still more people at the green site. Habits are hard to break.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Nerdfest on Friday January 27 2017, @04:46AM

        by Nerdfest (80) on Friday January 27 2017, @04:46AM (#459322)

        Have you seen the quality of the comments? I check them out every few months and it's sad how bad it is.

        • (Score: 4, Funny) by tibman on Friday January 27 2017, @03:18PM

          by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2017, @03:18PM (#459488)

          Thank you for your service.

          --
          SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Friday January 27 2017, @03:02AM

      by dry (223) on Friday January 27 2017, @03:02AM (#459283) Journal

      The problem is that the cable companies are often also the only internet provider (or like here where the telecom also competes in both spaces) and while making sure competition is illegal through lobbying, will just jack up internet prices to cover the cable losses.
      Here in Canada (actually BC as it varies per Province), while we have a couple of companies supplying cable, internet and cell service, they all seem to charge the same and increase their prices in lock step. While the federal government has tried to encourage competition now and again, it's hard to enter a market with such barriers to entry.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 27 2017, @03:07PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2017, @03:07PM (#459484) Journal

      I cancelled cable tv. I have internet, but have two local choices of providers. Both of them do offer tv content which I refuse. I'll stick with internet streaming services and an antenna. I don't watch that much TV, and I can find more than enough entertainment on a Roku with a few paid channels.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday January 27 2017, @09:26PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday January 27 2017, @09:26PM (#459715) Homepage Journal

      I don't understand why everyone acts like they can't survive without TV...

      I don't understand why you people think you need cable to watch TV. I have no cable, live in a city of 110,000 and get 18 channels in 1080p.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    • (Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Saturday January 28 2017, @02:41PM

      by JeanCroix (573) on Saturday January 28 2017, @02:41PM (#459887)

      When you finally get sick of being abused by them you simply cancel service and tell them to fuck off.

      I've done this. Several times. But I get my internet through the same company which provides cable around here. So every time I go to cancel the cable, the phone tree routes me to a "retention specialist" who tries to talk me off the ledge. And it's worked every time, because they always discount my "bundle" to make it more expensive to have my internet alone. Yes, they're basically giving me a price break on internet to keep my cable. Generally about $10 a month difference. I never watch the tv, but sometimes I leave it on to keep the dog company when I'm not home...

      I've tried the company's local competitor, too. They're worse.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Snotnose on Friday January 27 2017, @03:20AM

    by Snotnose (1623) on Friday January 27 2017, @03:20AM (#459287)

    2000. Working at a contract shop. Goal was to make a cable box that, among other things, would let the consumer plug a something into their cable box that they bought from somewhere besides the cable company. 6 months later it was clear that, no matter the law, the cable company was not gonna let this happen. The excuse given was "we can't settle on a standard", the actual reason was the damned box would cost maybe $150, but they charged $20/month rental.

    Don't remember the name of the spec, maybe DOCSIS, too lazy to look it up. But after a year of work realized the cable companies had no desire to make these things work, and the FCC was "oh, look. puppies!" on the issue.

    / company went toes up maybe a year after this
    // not just this, 3-4 years of picking the wrong horse
    /// Microsoft Windows CE. WinCE. That killed the company with an aptly named embedded system.

    --
    Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by KiloByte on Friday January 27 2017, @04:19AM

    by KiloByte (375) on Friday January 27 2017, @04:19AM (#459310)

    “Congresspeople”? Please don't antropomorphize them!

    --
    Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @07:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @07:30PM (#459664)

      Yes, the world's critters such as skunks & insects deserve to be in their own comparatively royal category in comparison!

  • (Score: 1) by slap on Friday January 27 2017, @06:49AM

    by slap (5764) on Friday January 27 2017, @06:49AM (#459351)

    Ars Technica reports that nineteen bought and paid for Republican members......

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @09:28AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @09:28AM (#459393)

    Great. We need a law to stop these rent seekers. What next..

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @07:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @07:14PM (#459656)

    no, they can differentiate themselves by lowering their prices, offering faster speeds, better uptime, etc. you know, stuff having to do with the service they are selling. not trying to weasle into your whole home with their slaveware so they can control and datamine everything you hear or see. next they will want to sell nose filters with proprietary smell o vision...