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.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Sunday October 23 2016, @05:51AM
My guess is that they refuse to sell the device to you, because renting it leaves it in their possession. Having it in their possession means they control all of the hardware, code, keys, algorithms, etc. As well as greater legal rights in pursuing remedies against subscribers that attempt to modify their units, reverse engineer them, etc.
Otherwise, if you exchange the box ever couple of years for an upgrade, it's not a bad type of lease. That being said, fuck cable TV anyways. Cut the cable 10 years ago :) I have the Internet, the massive fucking upgrade to cable TV ;P
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @07:33AM
You cable subscribers all love to brag about how you cut your cord. Me, I never had a cord to cut. Never had cable. Ever. Truly I am better than you, and I always will be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @02:13PM
You've got some personal issues to work through.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @09:48AM
Box renting fees add up to an income of several tens of billions of dollars, every year.
Selling the boxes would probably somewhat cut that revenue stream down, although they'd still keep the monopoly. Removing the monopoly (aka allowing you to buy and use a third-party box) would definitely remove most of that revenue.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday October 23 2016, @02:13PM
Selling the boxes would probably somewhat cut that revenue stream down, although they'd still keep the monopoly. Removing the monopoly (aka allowing you to buy and use a third-party box) would definitely remove most of that revenue.
Maybe, but I suspect it will be much like PC's or mobile devices. Most people will simply use what is offered with their cable or satellite installation. Unless cable boxes become inexpensive, easy to install, configure and use and are readily available everywhere the greater majority will not bother.