Handley_Page
Draco interdum Vincit
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2007
- Posts
- 78,287
Cable developments
- Thread starter Handley_Page
- Start date
JKendallDane
Plot Bunny Herder
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2012
- Posts
- 6,897
The cable (and usually accompanying ISPs) companies have ceased basing their profits on providing internet and cable "services" to being in the equipment rental business. They saw the fortunes the rent-to-own places were making and duplicated it for their own scam.
Oh they'll allow you to buy the modems and boxes too...at about three times the price they could be sold for by Best Buy or any other reputable electronics chain.
I told Cox to shove their cable system and ridiculous pricing up their ass more than three years ago. Everyone cried when they jacked all their prices by ten percent in January. (just another one of those little exceptions to the zero inflation CPI the government says we had.
)
The whole industry is basically a monopoly with a second monopoly on the equipment. Fuck 'em!
.
Oh they'll allow you to buy the modems and boxes too...at about three times the price they could be sold for by Best Buy or any other reputable electronics chain.
I told Cox to shove their cable system and ridiculous pricing up their ass more than three years ago. Everyone cried when they jacked all their prices by ten percent in January. (just another one of those little exceptions to the zero inflation CPI the government says we had.
)The whole industry is basically a monopoly with a second monopoly on the equipment. Fuck 'em!
.
Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Posts
- 28,080
<====
But my partner does.
We live in a remote mountain hamlet in a county served by a local monopoly. All phone, TV/cable, DSL/inet, and a few public WiFi spots come through Volcano Vision. Except for Dish and DirectTv there's no competition here -- we're off the map for Verizon et al.
Eliminating set-top boxes in (sub)urban areas with competitive services may help those (sub)urban suckers but we in the hinterlands won't see much benefit. Whatever Volcano Vision loses on boxes they'll gain on boosted monopoly rates.
That's why we're seeking alternatives, especially as we plan to be RV'ing much of each year. I see DirectTV in our future.
But my partner does.
We live in a remote mountain hamlet in a county served by a local monopoly. All phone, TV/cable, DSL/inet, and a few public WiFi spots come through Volcano Vision. Except for Dish and DirectTv there's no competition here -- we're off the map for Verizon et al.
Eliminating set-top boxes in (sub)urban areas with competitive services may help those (sub)urban suckers but we in the hinterlands won't see much benefit. Whatever Volcano Vision loses on boxes they'll gain on boosted monopoly rates.
That's why we're seeking alternatives, especially as we plan to be RV'ing much of each year. I see DirectTV in our future.
FantasyXY
My Cromosome is XY
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 536
If the FCC had any authority over content contracts it could void all of the exclusive content deals the cable companies have and open up all content to all providers. At that point the set top box rental, and the insane cable company profits, become irrelevant and consumers will gravitate to the lowest cost best featured option.
But the FCC doesn't have any authority over content so the next best thing is to try to regulate open access to the bandwidth. Opening up the choice of boxes is only one small step. Net neutrality was a much larger step in the direction of openness.
This whole opening up the set top is nothing new. In fact when I read this article I had to check to make sure it wasn't one that was recycled from years ago. Some 15 years ago a similar ruling was handed down by the FCC and that made manufacturers produce set top boxes that got their identity through a SIM card, similar to the way cell phones work today.
That SIM card system was supposed to open up competition and lower the price of cable TV, but it didn't seem to have that effect. What it did do was allow development of TV applications such as the DVR as different set top manufacturers scrambled to dominate the business. Now the set top box is even further entrenched as cable companies now have content and features that are exclusive to them.
I think that in many ways the FCC chairs that were proposing the elimination of the set top box altogether probably have it right. HDTV sets should be able to decode digital content directly from the cable feed (with an interface converter). Then if consumers want a DVR or other type of TV application, they should be able to freely purchase a box to support that.
In the end I believe that the FCC is wasting its time trying to regulate set top box rentals. If the FCC truly wants to improve television and lower cost of access, it only needs to make improvements in the reach and format of the existing over the air services (free TV). And that is something the FCC has complete control over.
But the FCC doesn't have any authority over content so the next best thing is to try to regulate open access to the bandwidth. Opening up the choice of boxes is only one small step. Net neutrality was a much larger step in the direction of openness.
This whole opening up the set top is nothing new. In fact when I read this article I had to check to make sure it wasn't one that was recycled from years ago. Some 15 years ago a similar ruling was handed down by the FCC and that made manufacturers produce set top boxes that got their identity through a SIM card, similar to the way cell phones work today.
That SIM card system was supposed to open up competition and lower the price of cable TV, but it didn't seem to have that effect. What it did do was allow development of TV applications such as the DVR as different set top manufacturers scrambled to dominate the business. Now the set top box is even further entrenched as cable companies now have content and features that are exclusive to them.
I think that in many ways the FCC chairs that were proposing the elimination of the set top box altogether probably have it right. HDTV sets should be able to decode digital content directly from the cable feed (with an interface converter). Then if consumers want a DVR or other type of TV application, they should be able to freely purchase a box to support that.
In the end I believe that the FCC is wasting its time trying to regulate set top box rentals. If the FCC truly wants to improve television and lower cost of access, it only needs to make improvements in the reach and format of the existing over the air services (free TV). And that is something the FCC has complete control over.
Similar threads
