The new regulation is still in the comment stage and could be modified...
And that's the first half of the critical part of this: The service providers will do their best to serve the best interests of their shareholders by opposing any changes.
The second half is that even if any new rules are adopted, implementation will be dragged out, enforcement of the rule will be impotent, and most likely all it will accomplish in the end is the redirection of innovation away from better technology and service and toward better ways of evading the intention of the regulations.
Folks who have been watching this space for the twenty years since 104-104 was adopted will recall what a panacea CableCARD was supposed to be, and what a panacea AllVid was supposed to be. Keep your cynicism well-sharpened; you'll need it.
By the time they get around to it, I suspect that almost nobody will be using cable TV service other than commercial establishments. Seems like nearly everybody is dropping cable TV and going to Netflix.
That'll subside a bit when early adopter pricing subsides. We're already seeing some changes, with the Netflix price increase last October, the pulling of BBC properties from Netflix in anticipation of launching their own service (with its own fees, of course), and indications that some current-season series streaming on Hulu will be ending. Eventually, pricing will catch back up with value, and Average Joes, no longer driven by maniacal bargain hunting, will go back to making decisions based on which distribution channel they personally prefer from a service and convenience standpoint.
While some "broadcast-only" metrics seem to indicate that OTA is getting more popular, those metrics don't differentiate between OTA only and OTA + streaming. So they're not reporting "broadcast-only" at all. Most of what is reporting as OTA growth is coming from households that also have broadband according to the Nielsen Cross Platform Report, June 2014. Presumably those doing such surveys will be asking better questions in the future to get a firmer grasp on the difference between folks who are just OTA and those who are OTA + streaming.
Anyway, my point is that if they had a new regulation saying that they had to face competition for high speed internet, instead of just for the set top boxes, I'd be very pleased.
It is interesting, especially give how much erroneous bloviating there is about cable television "monopolies"
that there is so little outrage about markets that are much closer to being monopolies, such as for broadband internet service.
Interesting but I'm still trying to figure out what this means. For example - I have used Tivo, with a cable card, for years. I do NOT rent my cable box. (I also own my own broadband modem rather than pay a rental fee.). How will these boxes get the conditional access? Will cable cards still be the way? Conditional access is the security that allows a cable operator to give neighbor A showtime (and charge for it) and neighbor B the sports package (and charge for it) and cheapskate neighbor 3 the basic package (and charge less for it.). This has to be done on a household basis, or even settop basis. Digital rights management/encryption is key here... because the content providers insist on it.
I recently replaced my TiVo S3 with a TiVo Roamio Plus, primarily because of the conversion from MPEG2 to MPEG4 for cable networks. One of the side benefits is that I can peruse and capitalize on Comcast's On Demand service directly through my TiVo now. It's all done via software. Implementation of this decision is, of course, still up for discussion, and so that's partly why I am making the point that folks shouldn't have that much optimism based on this news report. I suspect that one implementation suggestion will be to establish general parameters for software-based conditional access.
When cablecard was introduced, a STB was not always needed, Comcast only encrypted premium channels, digital signals were not the norm, and HD was not a core offering. Now (at least with Comcast) all the signals are encrypted...
A change that was, incidentally, due to the determination that there is effective competition for subscription video entertainment services in every jurisdiction in the United States.
Some competition here [regarding STBs] should favor the user.
That's not clear. So few people rely on their televisions for news now that there are many who object to the very notion that government should have any role in getting in the way of business earning whatever the market will bear.
but this might force operators to allow purchased boxes (other than tivo) to be added... similar to the cable modem model.
But don't think that means that there will be any. It is possible that everyone is grossly overestimating the value of this market. We're talking about the American consumer, who is, by nature, a maniacal bargain hunter, and who therefore can drive any consumer market down in the ground so badly that there isn't any money to be made. That, in turn, disincentivises quality suppliers from staying in the market. I doubt TiVo will stop making boxes, but I think it is as likely as not that opening up the market for STBs could have the effect of shrinking the market (at least for quality devices) rather than enlarging the market. The big winners, therefore, from STB competition may not be average consumers, but rather aficionados, folks who will use open architectures to build their own from scratch as a hobby. It isn't unusual for seemingly consumer-focused efforts in this space to end up only benefiting hobbyists.
