Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Hardware

FCC Opens Market for Cable Boxes 222

fistfullast33l writes "The FCC rendered a decision today against a Comcast appeal that centers on integrated security features in set-top cable boxes. The decision comes at the end of a long standing feud between the FCC and cable companies over the matter. The result is that starting July 1st, cable boxes distributed by cable companies must not be tied directly to a cable provider via internal security features. This rule is viewed as the first step in creating a market for set-top cable boxes. Comcast does have the right to appeal and has said they will do so. From the article: 'Several major consumer electronics manufacturers have argued that if set-top boxes weren't directly linked to the provision of cable service, they could enter the set-top market. Consumers could get a cable card from their service provider that they could insert into a set-top box purchased at a consumer electronics store. The cards would ensure that consumers could only access channels that they paid for.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Opens Market for Cable Boxes

Comments Filter:
  • step one... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @10:53PM (#17567826) Homepage
    The result is that starting July 1st, cable boxes distributed by cable companies must not be tied directly to a cable provider via internal security features.

    Now if only they could accomplish this same feat for mobile phones.
  • comcast (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nikros ( 1037028 ) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @10:56PM (#17567850)
    Good for Tivo. Bad for Comast.
  • Re:Appeal? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @11:04PM (#17567932)
    approximately what the percent chance Comcasts appeal will work?

    It's directly proportional to the wad of cash they give a senator. The FCC doesn't understand technology anyway. Also, consumers are too dumb to be able to make choices for themselves.
  • man (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Trelane ( 16124 ) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @11:14PM (#17568022) Journal
    now, if only we could get a MythTV (i.e. abiltiy to create a Free DVR) clause in there, we'd be golden....
  • by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @11:15PM (#17568028)
    Don't higher end TVs have "integrated digital cable tuners" where you put a card in and be able to receive the digital channels? From my understanding, the only thing you'd be missing is the "special" services from your cable provider, mainly guide information.

    Current CableCard technology is one-way only. So you can't order PPV or control VOD programming. CableCard 2.0 is supposed to support two way communication, but it isn't out yet. It also will be a different card interface. So if you bought a TV that includes a CableCard slot, guess what, you have to buy a new TV to use the 2.0 cards.

    Also, cablecos are not yet required to offer CableCards yet. The FCC's plug and play rule that covered it does not take effect until July. So if your cableco currently does not want to offer CableCards, you're SOL.

    I'm not sure what the ownership rules are for CableCards, but from what I've seen it appears they are still the property of the cableco and you still pay a monthly fee for them (you just don't have a big, hot running box to keep around).

    If this rule is allowed to take effect (translation: a bunch of cableco lobbists don't pop up and stop it) soon hooking up digital cable will be as easy as hooking up analog cable. The converter box can be built into the TV the same way we transitioned from having to get a box from the cable company twenty years ago to having "cable ready" TV's. It would help clear the way for people to not have to pay "per box" for their service. DVR recorders can be built that can tune all the channels themselves.

    I think this is fabulous, it's a step to reversing the nickel and diming cablecos and the entertainment industry as a whole have been doing the past ten years.
  • Re:Good or bad? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous McCartneyf ( 1037584 ) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @11:36PM (#17568216) Homepage Journal
    No, Comcast won't just take your cable box away.
    This sort of thing happened with telephones a while back; when they broke up the original AT&T, they also allowed anyone with the means and desire to make and sell phones. Customers no longer had to rent the phone from the phone company--but many people still did rent phones. I think it's possible to rent phones from phone companies even today; some of them seem to encourage it.
    As it was with phones back then, so it will be with cable boxes if this ruling holds. Perhaps someone will soon make an independent cable box that you can buy outright and use with any cable provider anywhere. (Yes, even one with a DVR.) But you'll still have the option of renting the cable box from Comcast, and it's almost certain that Comcast will encourage people to continue renting their boxes.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11, 2007 @11:46PM (#17568334)
    Good. This should pave the way for mobile phones to be operator agnostic.
  • by /dev/trash ( 182850 ) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @11:49PM (#17568364) Homepage Journal
    The USB port is there so that once the Cable companies figure out how to charge for it's use.
  • Re:step one... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by troll -1 ( 956834 ) on Friday January 12, 2007 @12:09AM (#17568542)
    Now if only they could accomplish this same feat for mobile phones.

    Be thankful cell phone companies aren't running the Internet. If they were you'd buy your computer from your ISP and it wouldn't work with any other ISP. Your equipment would come with Internet access but no email, that would be extra. If you wanted an email sound alert, you could always 'shop for sounds'. Access to overseas sites would be charged at a higher rate and your ISP bill would list every site you visited that month. Cell phone providers pay billions in license fees to the FCC for the privilege of being able to nickel and dime you for every trivial service they can think of.
  • Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Wesley Felter ( 138342 ) <wesley@felter.org> on Friday January 12, 2007 @01:49AM (#17569428) Homepage
    By forcing cable companies to use CableCards themselves, the FCC will also force the cable industry to make CableCards actually work correctly. If the industry is given a choice between no VOD and making CableCard VOD work, they will find a way to make it work.
  • by Dillenger69 ( 84599 ) on Friday January 12, 2007 @02:57AM (#17569806) Homepage
    I found out an interesting thing on the slow response times from a comcast tech.
    It seems that the only remote button that is locally processed is the power button.
    All other clicks get relayed to a central server and are then directed back to your box.
    This really explain why, after not responding for 30 seconds, my cable box goes nuts and spams through every command I've been pumping in while it was locked up.
    Whoever approved the design ... and whoever designed it ... are really lacking in the smarts department.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, 2007 @05:08AM (#17570638)
    insightful? this isn't even a sentence!
  • by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Friday January 12, 2007 @05:08AM (#17570640) Homepage
    1. The cable company's DVR sucks.
    2. IR control is an unreliable kludge.
    3. Many people can't get DirecTV or Dish.
    4. Many people can't get FIOS or U-Verse.
    5. Most people prefer a DVR that "just works".
  • Re:step one... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EtherMonkey ( 705611 ) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @01:44AM (#17587228)
    Just say NO to CDMA and YES to GSM. The things you describe only occur in the CDMA marketplace: Verizon, Sprint, and the VARs that sub-license from them. In the GSM world, a phone is a phone is a phone, and Cingular is just as happy to activate that unlocked Blackjack or RAZR purchased on eBay as is T-Mobile. And neither of these carriers force phone manufacturers to disable features to force customers to use the carrier's own overpriced alternatives. While Verizon has invested billions in marketing the superiority of their networks, Cingular has invested billions in expanding its GSM coverage throughout the USA. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but from rural North-Eastern PA (Milford-Dingmans-Shohola) throughout NJ and NY, my signal coverage, call quality and completion rate is NOTICEABLY BETTER with Cingular than it ever was with Verizon, and I can buy my phone, unlocked, anywhere I want, transfer my own MP3 files without paying and save off my photos without paying. Now if Cingular would just drop that asinine SMS message fee I would be a 100% satisfied customer.

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

Working...