FCC Extends Set-Top Box Deadline 200
Kadin2048 writes "The FCC today announced that it was once again rolling back the date (PDF!) for the eventual ban of "integrated set-top boxes" distributed and leased by cable companies to consumers, from 2006 to 2007. The move was a slight nod to the cable providers, who wanted the ban removed altogether, and a minor setback to the consumer electronics industry, who would have preferred that it stay on schedule. The ban would prevent the largest cable companies from integrating their digital content security devices with their navigation devices, allowing consumers to 'mix and match' the navigation or DVR set-top-box of their choice with a standard CableCARD security interface device. Currently, most digital cable set top boxes combine these two functions, meaning that digital cable customers who want DVR functionality must rent one from their cable company. By preventing the cable companies from leasing them to end-users, the FCC hopes to foster competition in the set-top-box market and allow more consumer choice. A statement from FCC Commissioner Johnathan Adelstein (PDF) was released simultaneously. The battle has been carefully watched by all the major players in the entertainment and electronics markets, including Microsoft, which had previously weighed in on the side of the consumer electronics camp (pro-deadline), but then later agreed with the one-year extension."
Re:Why ban them? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:are we hosed? (Score:2, Informative)
Not going to happen. Time Warner, Cablevision, Comcast and all the others have already paid their bribes [opensecrets.org] to the FCC monkeys' bosses, they're going to get results.
Re:altho.... (Score:5, Informative)
Why is the FCC interested in CableCard? The FCC has been promoting the transition from analog programming to digital programming as it looks to free up the spectrum used by analog television broadcasts. CableCard is supposed to help speed up the transition by making it easier and cheaper for consumers to access digital programming.
And there you have it. The FCC is looking to clean house in order to make room for more signals.
Re:Michael Powell (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Cable Boxes (Score:3, Informative)
I also think that the Cable company is required to send OTA (over the air) network channels un-encrypted over the cable wire. So you should at least be able to get the Networks.
Re:Choice in set-top boxes (Score:3, Informative)
The Broadcast Flag isn't about Competition!!! (Score:1, Informative)
The broadcast flag is about fair use rights. Changing the broadcast flag does absolutely nothing as far as competition is concerned, unless you're a pirate who hopes to pick up the shows free off the Internet. Since I hope your goal is protecting fair use and not violating copyright, your statement makes no sense, because the two ideas are not connected.
-1 Offtopic for you (if I could)
Re:Why ban them? (Score:3, Informative)
getting Motorola, scientific atlanta, and jerrold to quit being assholes and settle on one standard for digital TV and encryption.
right now if you plug a SA box in a Motorola headend's cable feed you get NOTHING. it is intentionally incompatable (motorola's fault.) Instead of following a digital standard like DVB, the one that the rest of the world uses... the United states uses something that is utter crap, intentionally broken and screwed up by the morons at Motorola, Jerrold and SA together.
Cable card does not work because the Cable gear makers do not want it to. they want to keep Cable companies locked to their gear. Motorola wants you to be FORCED to buy Motorola boxes and gear if you have a Motorola headend, and make it insanely expensive for you to change from that.
The cable companies have nothing to do with it. bitch about the sattelite reciever makers, and head end gear makers, they are the reason it sucks.
Re:wonder how this affects tv production? (Score:2, Informative)
The digital standard that's being pushed back is a technology that specifies that all of the higher order functions, such as interactive menus, ordering PPV, Video-on-demand, etc are controlled by the card. This is what cablecard 2.0 standard encompasses. The shipping card slots now are only 1.0 slots. The 2.0 cards will be backwards compatible, but they keep flip flopping on the how it will work and companies can't even start to implement a 2.0 standard until it's finalized.
The big score for the cable companies on this pushback is that not only is it not implemented for another year, but that the interface will not have to be specified until then too, keeping companies from offering a product that can be upgraded simply by putting in the new card.
Re:altho.... (Score:5, Informative)
The end result is that the FCC is going to recover spectrum by lowering the top end of the UHF band, as they have done several times in the past. That is how the 800 MHz cell phone bands were created. The original plan also would have recovered the VHF bands but that was killed by lobbying from the broadcasters.
Re:I want TiVo's software (Score:3, Informative)
In early 2006, a TiVo is coming out [tivo.com] that allows this [com.com]. CableCARD is what you desire. A dual tuner CableCARD TiVo will be released that will be compatible with all (U.S., not sure about the rest of you) cable/digital cable standards, QAM [wikipedia.org]. I can't seem to dig up pictures of it now, but a prototype was shown at the most recent CES.
I'm sure that for these, the digital stream will be recorded directly to hard drive like the DirecTV units do. The current HD TiVo does with over-the-air ATSC broadcasts already.
--falz
Re:Friggin Monopoly (Score:4, Informative)
I'm almost positive the marginal cost in adding a new channel to your lineup is minimal; the majority of the subscription cost likely covers overhead. So they might be able to give you a la carte channel subscription, but there'll still need to be a heavy base service fee to do it. I might pay $65 a month for digital cable with the base channel package, and yeah they could probably charge me $40 for service plus a few dollars per channel. At that point, though, you might as well just pay the $65. The FCC might be able to help the consumer by opening up competition in various areas of the market as they're trying here, but they simply cannot alter your cable company's cost structure.
You might argue that a cable company is a monopoly, which it isn't, but it is a pretty small oligarchy when you include the satellite providers (who, in many cases, arent any cheaper than cable). What half of slashdot seems to forget is that even in a market with few players, there are costs involved. Those costs will prevent you from paying by the channel without some sort of heavy base fee.