FCC wants to do away with all "set top boxes"?

[MikeD-C05]

Not really big business concerns, more than it is free market concerns. I mean, the FCC was looking out for customers in 1992 and 1996, right?

Yes, of course they were and that is why set top boxes continue to climb in price . Because anything that they try to do is quickly co-opted by congress ,who then steps in and , changes it and then the idea is corrupted & ends up serving the best interest of big business instead. Proves that there is so much collusion between the congress and business interests, that there is no more room for consumers interests at all. Which means that set top boxes will continue to climb in price ,just like the hopper has gone from $7.00 in 2012 to $15.00 in 2016. That Fee has more than doubled in 4 years.

 

[ChadT41]

Nobody could see the FCC deregulating locals allowing compnies to own as many as they would like would cause problems. The FCC serves the FCC. This is something that should not be hidden. Wonder what kind of FCC we would see if Wheeler had to politic his way every few years, and if he would be so willing to allow the NAB control his every move.

 

[dare2be]

Nobody could see the FCC deregulating locals allowing compnies to own as many as they would like would cause problems.

Nobody? The regulations were there for a reason, and once they were removed, the mess started. History has shown what happens when free market forces go unchecked.

 

[MikeD-C05]

Nobody? The regulations were there for a reason, and once they were removed, the mess started. History has shown what happens when free market forces go unchecked.

Exactly. But have you ever noticed that people don't learn from History. It happened during the 1920s , no regulations which lead to the Crash of 29 and then Great Depression that lasted till WW2 got us out. Then again in 2000s we did away with regulations or deregulated every industry we could and then Bingo the market crash of 08 that lead to the GREAT Recession , which man of us are still digging out from and many have not recovered . Guess what one candidate for the presidency is calling for in his campaign? More De-regulations. People who do not learn from history are Doomed to repeat it ,again and again. Just think how much further we would be as a society today, if people just knew their history , government and economics.

 

[ChadT41]

The free market regulates itself. It's when there is government interference, that we see those problems occur. People will only pay what they are willing to pay, and when they cannot pay more, they either stop using the service(in this case, an already luxury service) or they find a new way of getting it(cord cutting.) When the government steps in, it is going to affect those that were already saving money.

 

[TheKrell]

The free market regulates itself.

Apparently you've never heard of a monopoly.

 

[dishcomm]

Comcast has me pissed off. They absolutely refuse to give me access to my local government, public access, and school channels, unless I buy the basic package. That should be illegal, as they are community based channels.

The issue began when the FCC decided to allow cable companies to encrypt local programming. Before, I got all the OTA Channels and public access channels. I am a phone and internet sub. Anyone with a hook up should get access to their town or city's channels.

Let me preface this( why should have to pisses me off) by saying I am no fan of any pay tv provider.
Now, the explanation as to why you must pay for local access so called "free" services is because those services are being transmitted across the property of a private enterprise that funded the construction and funds the maintenance and operation of said facilities.
Your beef is with the service producers themselves. They are the ones who decided to limit their outlet to one provider.
Have you checked to see if the local access is available on line?

 

[dishcomm]

ahh the days of cable ready tv's to return?

"Cable ready" LOL....All that meant was a tv had a coax connection on the back of the case.

 

[dishcomm]

All I want is my kids' school channel and my town's channel for public meetings. That should be given for free to anyone. I don't even want their carriage of my locals. But the public access should be public access. Heck, I already pay for those channels through my taxes.

They are free. But since you are using Comcast's facilities to view them, you have to pay for access to the facility.....You are paying to use Comcast's structure. Not the programming. No pay tv provider is going to allow viewers to access their property without paying them for that access.

 

[dishcomm]

Nobody? The regulations were there for a reason, and once they were removed, the mess started. History has shown what happens when free market forces go unchecked.

The issues we are seeing are not a result of an unfettered free market. Simply put, no such thing exists. The FCC still controls much of the tv and radio industries.
The problem with entities such as the FCC, is the people that run them are not accountable to the voters. The Chair and the upper level people serve at the pleasure of the Sitting POTUS. As long as POTUS is not bugging them with phine calls and meetings, the FCC is essentially autonomous to do as it pleases.
We get stuck in the middle.
If it were up to me there would be no foreign ownership of any radio, ty station or newspaper. Nor would there be any foreign ownership or investment in any ISP or news organization.
No one company would be permitted to own more than one TV station, one radio station, one news paper nor one ISP in a given market.

 

[dare2be]

They are free. But since you are using Comcast's facilities to view them, you have to pay for access to the facility.....You are paying to use Comcast's structure. Not the programming. No pay tv provider is going to allow viewers to access their property without paying them for that access.

Thing is, he already IS paying Comcast to use their facility...thru his broadband bill. The crux of the problem is outlined here:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/14/fcc-to-allow-encryption-of-basic-cable-with-a-few-strings-that/

 

[dishcomm]

Thing is, he already IS paying Comcast to use their facility...thru his broadband bill. The crux of the problem is outlined here:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/14/fcc-to-allow-encryption-of-basic-cable-with-a-few-strings-that/

Broadband and tv are mutually exclusive.
These channels should be made available to all either OTA or via internet. No one should be compelled to subscribe to pay tv to view local access community services.

 

[dishcomm]

Read this today on Fierce Cable....
http://www.fiercecable.com/cable/co...sejRnWngza1hGMmF0ZTFOTDMxN3VITGEzaTJFeGxvPSJ9
Of course the cable giants do not want anything to change. Change represents a threat to their monopoly on equipment distribution and the requisite fees that go along.

 

[dare2be]

Broadband and tv are mutually exclusive.

Not to the companies that offer both in discounted bundles. Presumably partly because the infrastructure costs are already paid for by one service, and don't need to be charged a second time with the other service.

Anyway, broadband only customers were able to receive unencrypted local and public access TV channels just fine until the FCC allowed them to cut them off.