FCC Extends Set-Top Box Deadline

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."

I want TiVo's software

[Anonymous Coward]

to work with my Charter Digital Cable, is it too much to ask?

No time like the present

[Doc Ruby]

Pushing back the deadline buys the cable companies more time to throw it out altogether. It's standard corporate legal strategy, where the only strategy is short-term - one after another.

Re:The FCC is dictating the MARKET now?!

[BenFranske]

AFAIK there are no plans to ban cable companies from leasing set top boxes, only requirements they allow me to use devices without leasing a set top box. Sounds like a good thing to me.

Re:They should probably be eliminated entirely.

[geminidomino]

I disagree. The money IS there. It's just that their broken business model doesn't support it.

People will pay big money for TV shows they've never seen on DVD. My cable company didn't start offering The SciFi Channel until well into Farscape Season 4, so I never saw it. Now I have all 4 seasons + Peacekeeper Wars on DVD, total cost: about $450

On the other hand, I just cancelled my $50/mo cable service (no digital) because other than 1/2 hour of Family Guy every weeknight, there was nothing worth watching that wasn't festering crap.

Re:hmm

[Wesley Felter]

They already did that; it's called OpenCable/CableCard.

Choice in set-top boxes

[hackstraw]

but no choice in cable providers.

Personally, I would prefer the latter to the former.

FCC is pro competition?

[daves]

If they want competition, they should eliminate the broadcast flag [eff.org].

Re:Why ban them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why ban cable companies from being able to provide set top boxes? ALLOW customers to have the choice. If they want to buy their own set top box for what ever price they are sold for let them. If they would prefer not to invest a bunch of money into the box then let them lease a cable box.


That'd be fine...if we ALLOWED customers to choose their cable company. As it is, customers are assigned to particular cable companies based on their location. The only choice that the customer has is cable or no cable.

Expecting market forces and competition to work things out in this environment is crazy.

Re:They should probably be eliminated entirely.

[geminidomino]

Great idea, unless I can't throw it on my Polaroid portable DVD player and watch it there (and we know that's gonna be the case). I'd much rather they stop screwing around and start allowing a la carte subscriptions, so I don't have to pay for MTV, CMT, VH1, etc... just to get my Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, and SciFi (kinda iffy on that one these days, though)

Re:They should probably be eliminated entirely.

[gstoddart]

This glut of reality TV ain't just because it's fun and interesting to watch average people compete for big dollars in unrealistic scenarios. There just isn't money to produce cool shows like Farscape or Friends anymore.

No, they're popular because people watch the damned things. If there were no ratings for so-called 'reality' TV, it would be off the air.

The fact that it's cheaper for them to make reality shows doesn't mean there's no money for other shows, it means they make bigger profits from hugely successful shows that don't cost all that much to make.

CableCards

[wwonka74]

I'm sure this was also pushed back because the manufacturers of devices with cablecard technology still do not have all their ducks in a row. My local cableco supports and provides cablecards to customer's that would rather have them but the lack of 2-way communication certain niceties are ousted like the digital guide and pay per view(which is why I _enjoy_ the box in the first place). Our local cable company allowed customers to purchase their own HD converter boxes at local retailers and it was toppled because customers deemed the $350 price tag on the HD boxes outrageous so the cable company picked up the tab, ordered a slew of boxes and now leases them. Complaints about the use of set-top boxes need to be directed at the manufacturers of Televisions/VCRs and DVRs. They are the ones having most of the issues with compatibilty. Ask anyone with a Sony WEGA or a Mitsubishi TV how well their cableCARD works .. well it worked for a few days but now it's acting odd.

Monopolies need regulation

[joshtimmons]

The difference between cell phone providers and cable companies is that the cable companies are local monopolies. In my area (and yours too) you have to buy from whichever cable company is in your market. I think it's entirely reasonable to expect some regulation in exchange for a protected market.

This 30yr old is gonna tell a tall tale...

[SoundGuyNoise]

Gather round kids, this 30yr old is gonna tell a tall tale....

In stone age times, before the Internet, even before remote control was standard gear, just about every TV only went from Channels 2-13.

So to get the channel #s that went higher, you'd plug in the cable box, leave the TV tuned to channel 3, and use the box for your channel switching needs. They either had a button for each channel, or a slider.

We still had to get up to turn the TV on or adjust the volume, but if you had a good cable box, it had a long wire so you could at least change channels from across the room.

Re:This 30yr old is gonna tell a tall tale...

[fracai]

while that limitation was probably part of the reason for set top boxes, it doesn't tell the whole story. TVs now can go up as high as they need to so the boxes should be optional. If your TV can go high enough, it shouldn't need the box. Cable Companies got all paranoid about stealing cable and providing premium services. As has been said before, the box now also descrambles protected signals and provides interactive guides. It also acts as a tuner, which makes the tuner already in your TV somewhat redundant.

The CableCard should bring us back to the days of 2-13. An encrypted signal will come into your home, be decoded by the CableCard box and be available to any device in your home as an unencrypted stream. You can now split the signal as many times as is feasible. Each split can be independantly tuned, viewed, recorded.

The set top box is a mostly ridiculous concept at this point. Sure it provides an interactive guide, but that could easily be provided directly to the TV. Plus they can suck outright (my old Cox cable box [old as in different provider. Cox still provides the same sucky box] would take a full second to change channels)

Worst Idea Ever!!

[Lokni]

I don't know about you guys, but I have leased DVR boxes from Time Warner for the last 2 years and in that time I have gone through 6 DVR boxes and 5 HD-DVR boxes with the 5 HD-DVR boxes being consumed since August. If I had to buy a new one each time it broke, I would be poor. With Time Warner I just drive down to their office and get a new one. $1,000 says that no consumer electronics manufacturer could top that. You would probably have to mail it in at a cost of $20, then wait for 1-2 weeks to find out if its eligible for warranty repair, and then another 2-6 weeks for it to be repaired and returned to you. I always thought home-brewed DVR systems were a waste of money because I have had such excellent service from Time Warner. But if I have to buy these things, consumer electronics manufacturers can suck my left nut.

Re:Worst Idea Ever!!

[unclei]

This is a better argument FOR commercial set top boxes than against them, exactly because consumers won't put up with that kind of failure rate. The only reason we put up with them when they're provided by the cable company is that the cable company absorbs all the costs and hassle of fixing the things and getting replacements. We might not like the failure rate, but if we want digital content, it's the cable provider's box or nothing.

Take away the provider's effective monopoly on set top box choice, and competition between manufacturers will finally push the quality of these boxes into the range of "tolerable." It'll also allow DVR manufacturers like TiVo to compete on a more even playing field.

Re:Cable Boxes

[sxmjmae]

Right.
It would be nice if the cable companies would sell you the signal, be it HDTV or whatever, and then it was yours to do with what you want.

The Cable Company could offer to sell/rent you a main decoder box. That way you would just have one device to decode the singal and you could split it to as many TVs as you want after that.

If the cable companies where smart they would base their main decoder box on an open standard so you could buy 3rd party devices if you really wanted some special features. The best part would be if you had only one TV then you could get away with out having a extra stupid box hooked up before you could watch TV - the TV would decode it for you if needed (as long it was on some open standards).