FCC Votes to Dismantle Cable's Monopoly Over The Set Top Box
from the unlock-the-box dept
The FCC voted 3-2 today to begin dismantling the cable industry's long-standing monopoly over ye olde set top cable box. As noted previously, the FCC is pushing a proposal that would require cable operators make their programming accessible to third-party set top manufacturers, without requiring the use of a CableCARD. The goal is to create competition in the set top box market, giving consumers a choice of better and cheaper gear, in the same way consumers can buy their own cable modems. 99% of consumers currently pay about $231 annually in rental fees for hardware that's generally worth about half that much.Note this morning's vote simply sets forth a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that won't be voted on and fully revealed to the public until later this spring. The NPRM also indicates that cable operators will have two years from full approval to implement the changes. Assuming, that is, the elections don't end up with a totally revamped FCC that reverses the plan.
As you might expect, the cable industry has been engaged in hysterical, breathless protest against the FCC's proposal, since it would instantly demolish around $20 billion in captive revenue cable providers enjoy every year. The industry's also well aware that third-party set tops will be much more likely to include streaming services that compete with cable, accelerating cord cutting as the nation's Luddites suddenly realize they don't need to pay $150 a month for five hundred channels of garbage they don't actually watch.
But the industry can't just come out and admit these obvious motivations, so they've turned to the usual practice of farmed outrage in editorial sections nationwide. Including the creation of the Future of TV Coalition, which calls itself a "diverse group of programmers, content creators, civic groups and television providers" who've joined forces to "celebrate and promote the thriving innovation" going on in the cable industry. This group has been making the rounds trying to argue that set top box competition would destroy the universe as we know it, harm innovation, damage consumer privacy, and even hurt minorities.
On the heels of the vote, the group was quick to fire out an e-mail statement blaming "big tech" for the FCC's plan to...secretly make life hell for American cable consumers:
"The massive outpouring of opposition to this costly and destructive rule from members of congress, the creative community, TV distributors, and public advocates reflects a basic truth: the rules under consideration will drive up consumer costs, hurt programmers (and most especially small and diversity programming), and blow a gaping hole in Congressional protections for our TV privacy – all for an unnecessary government giveaway to Big Tech. In short, this rule does not make sense.Ahead of his dissenting vote this morning, former Verizon regulatory lawyer turned FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai was quick to parrot many of these claims:
"Among Pai's concerns were what he said could be the advserse impact on programmers, including on diverse programmers. "[N]othing in this proposal would prevent a set-top box manufacturer from replacing the commercials in a television show with commercials sold by that manufacturer. And nothing in this proposal would prevent a set-top box manufacturer from adding commercials to a program," he said."This idea that "big tech" companies like Google and TiVo will come in and intentionally filter out minority programming is something the industry has been scare-mongering over for weeks, but there's no evidence of this actually being a threat. Logically, broader access to cheaper, better hardware would be good for all consumers, as would access to a broader array of streaming options, layered on top of existing content. FCC boss Tom Wheeler was quick to state that these claims are "red herrings" being pushed by an industry that's perfectly happy with the status quo, and that nothing in his plan puts existing content or business relationships at risk:
"There is nothing in here that allows third parties to disaggregate cable content or sell advertising around it... It takes the same system that goes to the cable box today with the same structures and moves it through a different box requiring the same structures. As a result, existing copyrights and programming agreements are unaffected, consumer privacy is protected, emergency alerts are passed through and child protection laws are unaffected. Nothing in this proposal slows down or stops cable innovation."While the cable industry's opposition is by and large bullshit, there are some lingering questions with the FCC's well-intentioned plan. One, the plan will require an awful lot of effort, political fighting, enforcement and FCC man hours to revamp a technology that Internet video will likely make irrelevant in the next decade anyway. And once implemented, providers will likely look to simply recoup that lost revenue from broadband users in uncompetitive markets in the form of more fees, usage caps, zero rating and other potentially anti-competitive behavior. Behavior the FCC has been turning a blind eye to -- to focus on the cable box.
Following that line of thinking long term, it may have been wiser for the FCC to focus its energy and resources on broadband competition, and leave the cable box for dead as the vultures begin to circle overhead.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: competition, fcc, innovation, set top box
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Extra charge may apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the legacy industries are PR mouthful of how they support and provide "innovation" these days. If noone coined a term for it yet, i'd like to submit "innowashing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The funny thing is, I suspect this might partially be an attempt by Wheeler to save the cable industry from themselves. The way technology and consumers are currently headed, we're going to end up with either one box people own that handles OTA TV, DVR, and internet streaming apps and one box they rent that handles cable and maybe DVR; or one box they own that handles internet streaming apps, and one box they rent that handles cable and DVR. In either case, people will become more and more likely to get rid of the cable box (and cable TV with it), as they use it less and less, and it constantly costs them money to keep hardware they don't fully control around.
Forcing the cable companies to open things up to third party cable boxes on the other hand changes the direction of technology. Technology will be moving towards either one box that handles OTA TV, cable, DVR, and internet streaming apps; or one box that handles cable, DVR, and internet streaming apps. Either way, people will no longer have a box uselessly sitting around costing them money, which will lower their incentive to cut the cord. Even better, whether they use a Tivo, a Roku, a video game console, or something else, cable TV will be better integrated with internet streaming than ever. Helping pave the way for TV channels to survive by becoming more like Youtube channels, or Twitch channels.
But of course as usual rather than listen to what they have to say, the cable industry prefers to keep their fingers in their ears and spit in the face of someone who has seen the writing on the wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is brilliant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Film at 11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's also possible that when this does happen, it will provide the FCC with more ammuntion for forcing the cable companies to share their last mile infrastructure with other companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really Karl?
Sorry Karl, calling those of us who still subscribe to cable Luddites is a hot load of elitist crap.
Some of us happen to like the content we get over cable/UVerse/satellite AND we subscribe to streaming services for additional content. Yes, we're sick and tired of paying rental on the cable boxes. I dropped DirecTV and will never subscribe again because they extended my contract when I added an additional box. I cancelled cable and went back to UVerse after one week because the cable boxes from Charter were absolute warmed over junk. I'd love to be able to buy my own box to stream/DVR cable.
I agree with the poster that said this will be good for the cable companies by keeping them relevant in an age of cord cutting by including cable content on boxes that offer other streaming services.
It will be good for cable companies if it forces them to offer more channels/bundles individually. I.e. I'd drop 300 channels of worthless junk I never watch if I could get the sports channels I want without them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pai is such a tool.
The thing is most cable boxes now are loaded with ad-ware, and when someone tries to remove commercials (Dish/AdHop) they get sued. It's such a blatant misinformation campaign that they can't even get their own facts straight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Up Again
When DirecTV started you bought your receiver elsewhere and just got the service from them. You had your choice of RCA, Sony, or Hughes receivers. Somewhere along the line they looked at the Cable gravy train and decided to hop on board. I guess they didn't realize that many of their customers came because they were ticked off with cable. Those customers are now ticked off with DirecTV and looking to find a good alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
remember, everyone wants $
Being able to chose which between different manufacturers for cable boxes SHOULD mean that I can Buy the cable box, instead of Renting it.
The cable companies could have prevented this current backlash by just selling the stupid cable boxes in the first place, but they are too greedy--and want perpetual payments in the form of rental fees. I'm looking at you too Adobe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]