Cable Monopoly of Set-Top Boxes Poised to End?



Comments (17)

  1. Bill Bolster says:

    Isn’t this the same thing that the FCC did to the Telephone companies years ago? Remember when everyone had to have a phone provided by the Telephone company?

    [Reply]

  2. Chip henderson says:

    It’s ridiculous to pay what you have to to watch TV. Plus, all the other stuff you have to have to go with the TV… Please put me on your list and let me know when I can buy one.

    [Reply]

  3. Carlos B. says:

    Its about time something is done. Cable companies have had their share of the PIE. Greedy, no-good. S.O.B. The customers should be allowed to choose their programs. Stay on them, F.C.C. Enough is enough.

    [Reply]

  4. Dick Caro says:

    The protocol interface to all cable systems is better than “Open Source.” It is an international standard called Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) and is approved by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) as J.222 corresponding to DOCSIS 3.1. Any vendor may build to this standard, but it is the cable company’s own rules that force you to buy the Cable Modem either as a stand-alone device, or as a Cable Card that plugs into a device such as a computer or a TiVo. Hooray for the FCC to crack this monopoly.

    [Reply]

  5. way2confused says:

    Anyone want to bet that if this goes through, the cable companies will find a way to scramble their signals so the set top you by will not work as well as theirs?

    [Reply]

  6. gary Junkins says:

    My money’s already on Agora Holdings, Inc. (AGHI).

    [Reply]

  7. DangRight says:

    Government grants the cable companies monopolies. Try to get the cable company of YOUR choice wherever you live. Nope – government has deemed you MUST use the ONE they have granted a monopoly in your area.
    How about getting government out of the way and let the marketplace decide winners and losers.

    [Reply]

    William Burke Reply:

    [GASP!]

    You mean…. FREE MARKET CAPITALISM?

    Read our lips: when we call our system “Free Market”, please understand we really mean “Crony”.

    We know what’s best for us…. we mean you.

    Signed,

    Your Cable Company

    [Reply]

  8. Albert Cinelli says:

    Cable companies do not have a monopoly on programming. The content companies do. Also, cable companies must buy a whole package of programs in order to get this service. Cable companies cannot selectively get programming and offer selective programs to their customers. This monopoly by the content providers significantly raises the cost of Cable TV service. This is the area the FCC should focus on if it wants to reduce the cost of cable service to customers.
    Forcing cable companies to open their signals to other set top boxes will not result in a reduction of cost to the consumer. The change will require a service call from the cable company and the customer must pay for a service truck roll. Also, if there are any service problems there will be additional service charges. Right now service is included in the cost of set top boxes by most cable companies. The FCC is taking a wrong approach in an effort to protect the customer. It should take steps to unbundle TV cable content. This will result insubstantial savings for the cosumer, Al C

    [Reply]

  9. Albert Cinelli says:

    Opening competition to set top boxes will increase the cost to consumers when taking into consideration customer service. Switching set top boxers will require a service truck roll for which the customer will pay an extra charge. Also, if further service is required due to the foreign set top box, there will be an additional service charge.
    The better approach for the FCC is to regulate content. Cable companies are forced to take a bundle of content whether they like it or not. This content cost continually is increased by the content providers. A cable company cannot offer selective programming to its customers. The better approach for the FCC, if it wants to reduce cost, is to require an unbundling of content,
    Al Cinelli

    [Reply]

    William Burke Reply:

    Al, you sound like an industry flack. Plus, an anagram of your name is “call lie in”.

    [Reply]

  10. Adam says:

    Apple was talked about more than the cable companies, someone really digs their Apple TV.

    Seriously though cable companies have little to gain here if anything but the idea of a DVR is over anyway. Everything will be streaming in the feature and ultimately in that world all they can provide is an Internet connection. The idea of synchronized programs is going away, lucky for them people are very slow with change so give that 15 years.

    [Reply]

  11. Murray Schwartzberg says:

    Where & when can I get this cable box. I’m tired of having to depend on Comcast for a lot of things. I wish we didn’t live in a condo where we have to depend on just one cable company. While a lot of things are wrong with this & we have to live with it?

    [Reply]

  12. Mike Quester says:

    Will this ruling change INCLUDE the DISH NETWORK and DirectTV companies?
    I’ve got one of these for service and they are charging me $22 per MONTH!!!!!

    [Reply]

  13. Tom says:

    Long overdue, and the same over the top pricing applies to satellite companies as well. Time for this to end.

    [Reply]

  14. Dubbs says:

    The one big problem I see is the cable and satellite companies need to protect their encoding method which should remain propitiatory to them. How would you deal with this?

    [Reply]

  15. Fred says:

    I have cable…I should say they have me..I have trouble with them every time I get a bill its more and more every month…I hate cable..but I need internet service I can depend on”’ how can I give them the boot?????

    [Reply]

Add Comment