FCC Chief To Unveil Revised Plan To Eliminate Cable Boxes (fortune.com) 149
The top U.S. communications regulator plans to unveil a revised plan to allow about 100 million pay TV subscribers to replace expensive set-top boxes with less-costly apps that provide access to television and video programs, Fortune reports. From the report: Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler proposed in January opening the $20 billion cable and satellite TV set-top box market to new competitors and allow consumers to access multiple content providers from a single app or device. The plan, aimed at breaking the cable industry's long grip on the lucrative pay TV market and lowering prices for consumers, drew fierce opposition from TV and content providers, including AT&T, Comcast and Twenty-First Century Fox. The FCC has said Americans spend $20 billion a year to lease pay-TV boxes, or an average of $231 annually. Set-top box rental fees have jumped 185 percent since 1994, while the cost of TVs, computers and mobile phones has dropped 90 percent, the FCC has estimated. Update: 09/08 19:18 GMT by M :Tom Wheeler has just published the proposed laws at LATimes.
apps so they can lock down and change outlet fees (Score:2)
apps so they can lock down and change outlet fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:apps so they can lock down and change outlet fe (Score:5, Interesting)
If the current situation is boxes that are rented, and that can be updated remotely. Couldn't they do all that now anyway?
Yes, and that's one of the bullshit fees cable companies charges that needs to go away.
Back in the cable-ready-tv analog cable days, you paid for the service and it covered your whole house.
The excuse for adding these fees was the cost and upkeep of the equipment -- but it was really just a money grab.
There's no reason you should have to pay per-TV for service with software apps.
There might be an argument for per USER fees, but if I live alone and have two TVs (one in the bedroom and one in the living room), should I have to pay extra even though I can only watch one TV at a time?
Do you pay for each phone you have in your house anymore?
Does the water company charge for each bathroom in your home?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you pay for each phone you have in your house anymore?
Yes, I do. We cut the landline years ago, cell phones only these days.
Does the water company charge for each bathroom in your home?
Depends on how much crap you have in your family. Of course they charge per flush, as that is total water used. This analogy doesn't quite hold because only Comcast is trying to treat electrons like water or gas, and you don't really need any "special equipment" to convert said water or gas into something usable. There's no adapter you need to rent to convert the sludge in your water pipes to drinkable water, no adapter to convert gas int
Need to do two things (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Declare that no set top box can be rented more than 2 years - automatically converting them "rent to own".
2) Require all cable companies to have an App Market - charging no more than 30% / $1 (which ever is higher) to the app maker selling apps. These apps would be allowed to duplicate/replace any current function of the set top box, including programming DVR's, showing a channel guide, renting/selling movies, or accessing the internet or other provider services.
also all gateway fees must be part of the base rat (Score:2)
also all gateway fees must be part of the base rate as well.
Re: (Score:2)
no outlet or mirroring fees as well.
Re:Need to do two things (Score:5, Insightful)
How about simply moving the Franchise agreements away from the last mile, and let consumers choose what service / company provides what they want/need?
We wouldn't need "regulators" to "regulate" that which should be free and open competition, rather than creating mroe regulations to fix what regulations (Franchise agreements) have already broken. The answer isn't more regulation, it is moving the problem so that regulation isn't required at all.
The problem is last mile. Currently there is no option for "last mile" other than government granted monopoly. FIX t that problem and all the other problems go a way. It isn't that hard to solve, just have to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is last mile. Currently there is no option for "last mile" other than government granted monopoly.
Negating the government-granted monopoly means that companies won't build infrastructure in areas, because it's not profitable enough.
You have a "natural monopoly" called Cables in the ground, and the ability to put them there is massively expensive.
I think the only workable way is to keep the monopoly on the Cables, but require the 'feed' providers be separate companies and lease access to l
Re: (Score:2)
Negating the government-granted monopoly means that companies won't build infrastructure in areas, because it's not profitable enough.
Then why do I have two different competing fiber optic cable systems in my franchise-less region? I live a few miles outside of a small town in a semi-rural area and I've got three different fiber pedestals in my yard.
40 miles away in a bigger city, a second-tier cable provider has an exclusive franchise and people pay 50% more for lousy speeds over coax and shitty service.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why do I have two different competing fiber optic cable systems in my franchise-less region?
I'm in an unincorporated area just outside a city, that's semi-rural but rapidly growing, and there's no fibre optic available period. It's not that the government
is stopping potential providers or granting monopolies; perhaps large providers choosing not to come in and build / compete
out of their own free will, because it doesn't make sense as a long term investment.
There are many possible reasons that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tuning adapters suck.
Tuning adapters suck for the same reason CableCard as a whole kinda sucked. Because the cable industry as a whole wanted them to suck. Ever notice how their own boxes never had the same problems, even during the time they were forced to use the same CableCard interfaces? Or how variable the support was between providers, with some providers happily shipping cards to consumers and offering self-service interfaces to activate them where others would insist on a truck roll and scheduled appointment (with st
Re:Need to do two things (Score:5, Interesting)
Who "owns" the roads everyone drives on?
Who "owns" the right of way leased by CableCo?
Who "owns" public access rights?
Your problem is that you're still locked into the "Franchise Agreements" of years past, when they are no longer suitable for use in modern infrastructure.
Local Municipalities can build out the Fiber Plant, and bring everything back to a COLO facility where ... the competition for the customer happens. The last mile, is owned by the citizens via their local government.
Re: (Score:2)
Local Municipalities can build out the Fiber Plant, and bring everything back to a COLO facility where ... the competition for the customer happens. The last mile, is owned by the citizens via their local government.
The problem is, this has been tried and failed [slashdot.org]. The telecom companies and lobbyists are fighting to prevent this from being done for fear of losing their monopoly status.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has tried what I have been proposing. The scenario presented before was the Municipality owned not only the Transport, but also the broadcast / services being offered. IF they just built "fiber", and offered NO services, then there isn't a problem with public funding under cutting private services.
They can complain all they want, but without Franchise agreements, they have no customers.
That, and our court system is so screwed up with "entitlement" mentality that it actually isn't working any longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are very few things that government does that actually work right. Infrastructure is one, given the ability to actually take taxes that are supposed to go to it, and apply it there, without politicians taking the money and misappropriating it. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
We elect them. Just take a look at our top two Presidential Candidates.
Humans are evil, some more so than others. The good ones cannot compete with evil ones, because they have lines they will not cross, giving an unfair advantage to the evil ones who will win at any cost. It is also part of the reason I am a Libertarian, who views most government activity with disdainful eye.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they have a well and deal with their own water needs.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC, in cooperation with the state's public utility commission.
Same as for telephone service for the last decade or two.
Re: (Score:3)
#1 just guarantees that the cable companies will come up with some unnecessary horseshit compatibility-breaking change to their systems every 2 years in order to keep rent-seeking. And, you'll be stuck with the old piece of shit set-top box that's useless and have to dispose of it yourself. Win / win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Declare that no set top box can be rented more than 2 years - automatically converting them "rent to own".
2) Require all cable companies to have an App Market - charging no more than 30% / $1 (which ever is higher) to the app maker selling apps. These apps would be allowed to duplicate/replace any current function of the set top box, including programming DVR's, showing a channel guide, renting/selling movies, or accessing the internet or other provider services.
Why pay for them at all?
Why not copy Canada? (Score:2)
Canada has where all companies have to offer Cable Boxes, and DVRs on a Full Purchase, Rent to Own, and Rent Only basis?
Re: (Score:2)
Canada is not a model.
Cable boxes are expensive here too. Especially DVRs. And they only work with one provider.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada isn't an option, because the problem is in the Franchised last mile agreements. More regulations aren't really needed if you are able to solve the last mile problem. I have a solution, it is a responsible one, that frees up competition so that there is no government granted monopoly, on which to build additional government granted restrictions to competition. That isn't solving the problem that is building a whole enterprise on top the problem and calling the problem solved (it isn't).
It is really ea
Re: (Score:2)
And what is your magical solution?
Re: (Score:2)
Municipal owned last mile infrastructure.
Last mile is brought back to a COLO Facility where the competition happens for the customer. Last mile is just a transport media not owned by anyone but the local municipality.
Car analogy, it is a road, and the competition for delivery happens at UPS, FedEx and US Mail. (rough analogy, not perfect)
Re: (Score:2)
It might work. But how do you implement it? You seize/nationalize the current infrastructure from telcos and cablecos? You lay a third cable and compete with them?
And why municipal? Why not another government?
Re: (Score:2)
Rent to OWN?
I had a robbers cable box for 10+ years.
I wanted to just buy it.
They wanted to the same price as if it was new: $300+ !!!
WTF!!
Good.jpg (Score:3)
That would require some engineering and know how to do. This would cost money, which of course, the cable companies don't want to spend.
Re:Good.jpg (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Who said it needs to be in the TV? That's just an example. Use a Roku, Android TV, Apple TV, Amazon Fire, or Windows box if you prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said it needs to be in the TV?
The post I was responding to in the first place :-)
Re: (Score:2)
He just said the tv could handle it, but pretty much anything else could handle it too. I'd be surprised if at least Android, iOS, and Windows apps weren't made.
Re: (Score:2)
Get rid of the ridiculous cable boxes. The TV's we have now are a bajillion times more powerful than the ridiculous set top boxes. Why in the world would we need a DVR with the ability to stream shows. If the networks were smart they would just flag shows that people want to watch and when they finally want to view them start the stream.
That would require some engineering and know how to do. This would cost money, which of course, the cable companies don't want to spend.
So then your video service now requires Internet access to view "recorded" shows? No thanks. I still want my DVR to keep recorded shows locally stored at my house.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I even have an extra ESATA drive attached. Except when there was a problem with the FIOS somewhere, and I couldn't get TV, and figured I would watch a DVR recording instead, it WOULDN'T LET ME WATCH because it couldn't get the online approval that I was paid up. So it's not good enough that they encrypt the drive, and use a nonstandard disk format (which I know because it was a pain to recover when my old hard drive cra
Wheeler is a nice surprise so far (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
they will just pull something to keep trump out maybe this will slip by
Re: (Score:2)
Really? He's pretty weak on net neutrality and wireless providers when push comes to shove. He's a politician, promises a lot but I have yet to see choice in providers, actual net neutrality enforced (TWC still throttles YouTube and Netflix), elimination of arbitrary data caps or overall costs go down.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I have to update again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We went all-TiVo ourselves. A good amount of upfront cost, but that's fixed. The only thing we rent is one cablecard for the whole house.
It would be nice if the box got quality programs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A cable box might be worth owning if what went into the box for viewing were of high quality. I'd guess 90% or more of it is junk.
I'm getting flashbacks of the government subsidized ATSC tuner boxes.
Looks like he gave in. (Score:2)
"pay-TV providers will be required to provide apps – free of charge– that consumers can download to the device of their choosing". So the cable companies will still have a stranglehold - I don't see independent developers being allowed to create the apps. I can see it now. "Well, yeah, the app really sucks, but we have this nifty box that works so much better, and you'll just have to pay a little bit each month...".
Re: (Score:2)
That's okay, because all those apps will be on ONE BOX. That's what I want. Right now I have a CableCard tuner that only works with all channels on Windows Media Center. If I want to watch Netflix or Hulu, I have to close that out (they dropped Netflix from WMC), and either switch to the FireTV or Chrome, and use one or more DIFFERENT remotes. It sucks right now.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as "free." The end user will be paying for those "free" applications via higher fees and taxes.
What do you say I continue to not get cable (Score:2)
and continue to use Netflix and Amazon, and if I feel like it step up to using Hulu Plus. All three are still cheaper each month (or year) than cable. If I decide to subscribe to a single web channel, and I have one, it's going to take a lot of channels, plus Netflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon Prime together to catch up to the cost of cable. Honestly I don't care about most of the channels cable has.
They will weasel their way and drag their feet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guarantee you there will be "delays" and it will be a bear getting anybody to help you if your app on Roku for comcast does not work right.
That wouldn't be much of a change for Rokus in general in my experience. Their support staff like to blame any issue with the box connecting on your DNS settings for your Internet connection, which coincidentally cant be set on the device itself, so they refer your to your ISP for them to change your router settings to OpenDNS's, they insist this is the problem regardless of if you are having any issues on other devices (including other Rokus).
Re: cable is not over the air waves (Score:1)
Don't the cables have to run over public lands and government-controlled easements?
Re: (Score:2)
So do railroad tracks, doesn't necessarily mean the FCC should regulate freight either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's the Federal Communication Commission, not the Federal Wireless Commission. They have authority over any and all public communication, one or two way.
They have been around and regulating wireline communication since before you were born.
Re: (Score:2)
Any communication, in the most general sense, so are you suggesting that they regulate verbal speech?
No, really you cannot use the name of an organization to define an appropriate scope. You can look at the charter for the organization and see how it has expanded in scope through the years though.
Re:cable is not over the air waves (Score:5, Informative)
They regulate the telephone networks as well. They regulate "communication", in all forms, as their name directly implies.
Re: (Score:2)
> If a cable company puts some wire down, they ought to be able to do whatever they want with it as it does not interfere with other devices.
Because the cable company didn't 'put some wire down', the cable companies took billions in subsidies from the US Govt and did fuck all.
Re: (Score:3)
the cable companies are granted monopolies by the government, so therefore they get to receive more regulation to go with that
Re: (Score:2)
The monopolies have historically been granted by local governments, not federal government. It's treated as a utility service in most parts of the US.
Until about 15 years ago, anyone could start their own cable company because the leasing of utility poles was still open. AT&T, Comcast, and others control most of the utility space even though those poles themselves are owned by various power companies. (done through a maze of agreements)
Re:cable is not over the air waves (Score:4, Insightful)
If a cable company puts some wire down, they ought to be able to do whatever they want
No they shouldn't. Most cable companies are monopolies, either granted by the municipality, or a de-facto monopoly because no other company is going to incur the sunk cost of installing cable into what would then become a low-profit competitive market. The government has a legitimate interest in regulating monopolies, although it should probably be done through the FTC rather than the FCC.
The real solution is the get rid of the monopolies. When streets are trenched, a large (12") government owned conduit should be installed, and multiple fibers should be pre-installed inside it. These fibers can then be leased or sold to multiple competing companies, and any bonded company should be able to run additional cables through the conduit. This would drastically cut the cost of entering the market.
Our current system, of requiring each company to retrench, is as silly as requiring FedEx, UPS, etc to each build their own roads into each neighborhood.
Re: (Score:2)
The government has a legitimate interest in regulating monopolies
That's one theory, but it's easily disproven by the reality of regulatory capture. Any system that depends on incorruptible humans is unworkable, in reality.
a large (12") government owned conduit
Conduit, yes, but see above. Markets work wherever they're allowed. Corruption happens wherever government-controlled monopolies are allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
or a de-facto monopoly because no other company is going to incur the sunk cost of installing cable into what would then become a low-profit competitive market
That statement is total bullshit. I can't imagine how you could make a convincing argument to support that statement.
Re: (Score:2)
If a cable company puts some wire down, they ought to be able to do whatever they want with it as it does not interfere with other devices.
Before we implement your corporate utopia, first we need to rescind all property easements.
Then the cable companies can negotiate with each individual land owner to determine an appropriate agreed rental fee for allowing those wires in each parcel of property. If they can't come to an agreement with any particular owner, they can make deals with other land owners and re-route their cables.
Once all of that is complete, then they can completely deregulate cable.
Re: (Score:2)
Before we implement your corporate utopia, first we need to rescind all property easements.
That's insane - you're not thinking making this comment. Can you imagine how long your power would be out after a storm if the power company had to negotiate with EVERY property owner when coming to repair the lines? You fill in a stormwater ditch because your neighbor won't pay for an easement to keep it open? Some deeds even include easements because their neighbors' driveways run through the property.
Re: (Score:2)
You correctly figured out that the precondition for a true "free market" is not feasible. So the cable companies and other utilities will remain regulated.
Re: (Score:2)
They put the wire in the ground (or more likely on the poles) based on a granted monopoly so they could be assured of a return on their investment. That grant has/had a considerable value that has more than paid for the cabling by now. They rely on a public easement to allow their cables to exist at all. No easement and they're forced to negotiate with each and every property owner individually.
The cost of that public grant of passage through the easment is that the public has a right to regulate what they
Re: (Score:2)
Because the government (in recent times through the FCC but also a bunch of local, state and other federal offices) pays/paid for the deployment of cables. These cable companies are getting BILLIONS to deploy "high speed internet", regulations paid for a minimum of 10Mbps to be completed several years ago, then the FCC appointed yet another media executive (Wheeler used to be one too BTW) and rolled back their requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me add some emphasis to your question, since it's really two questions in one, both of which are worth addressing...
why does the FCC get to regulate it?
Because Congress transferred the Interstate Commerce Commission's telecommunications authority to the FCC when they abolished the ICC. That's why they're the ones doing the regulating. And while it's true that their original mandate only applied to the airwaves, the ICC was abolished the same year that the FCC was founded--1934--so for all intents and purposes the FCC had the authority to
Re: (Score:2)
they rely on one of our most precious public resources: access to public property.
they are hung from utility poles, owned by the power company but provided through easements throughout jurisdictions in the US. The telephone and power companies are leasing access to these poles so that cable companies by use those lines. Until fairly recently that access was wide open to anyone willing to draw up an agreement with a power company.
We already regulate those poles, because they are there for power lines and telephone lines. But the poles are under utilized, and letting anyone lay wires on th
Re: (Score:2)
You're assumption is wrong, it's not a new law. It's that the agreements have been arranged for exclusive access. In short, it's a monopoly now. It wasn't a monopoly 20 years ago (or even 10 years ago)
It's too late now, but the assertion that there was never room for second carriers has been this myth that has been difficult to overcome.
As for a solution, it would have to come out of the legislature now.
Re: (Score:3)
I cut the cord... ... but had to duct-tape it back together again to get internet access.
Re: (Score:2)
I cut the cord... ... but had to duct-tape it back together again to get internet access.
I'm not sure that duct tape is a good application for this... but it would work well for your cantenna project...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Time Warner in San Antonio refuses to allow you to subscribe to cable without renting their top box. On their site, it says you can, but both the local and 800 support said that you no longer can with the new pricing structures this year.
And dropping cable for the internet speeds I get would cost more than keeping cable - at least with the discounts they gave me after complaining and driving from TWC store after store.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe they're still legally required to allow this is some odd, awkward situations (aka cablecard).
But it's intentionally cryptic, difficult, and works very poorly for the vast majority of cases.
Cable companies went encrypted digital and quickly locked most of the market out - and made built-in TV tuners essentially useless - as part of a huge (legally approved) scam to force people to rent set top boxes for $cheap per month...which quickly escalated to $rip-off per month.
While you're getting off my law
Re: (Score:3)
So basically theft? Considering that open APs are almost always for people INSIDE those businesses/homes. Not for random people to leach off of.
Re: (Score:3)
NYC we have free city wifi in parts of the city. they put up one of those things by me but i can't reach it from my apartment yet. figure within the year they are going to put more up and i won't have to pay for time warner if i dont want to
Re: (Score:2)
Get a AP or Wifi router with removable antennas and put a yagi antenna on it, configure it as a wireless client (rather than AP) and plug your computer into the wired port. That should allow you to access the city AP by pointing the yagi at the city's AP.
Or something like this should do what you need:
https://smile.amazon.com/Ubiqu... [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:3)
So basically theft? Considering that open APs are almost always for people INSIDE those businesses/homes. Not for random people to leach off of.
Theft maybe, but insecure. If you pick up a packet of french fries that somebody bought from McD's and then discarded b'cos he was full, are you guilty of theft? Unhygienic, definitely, but theft?
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong analogy... Should you be able to walk into someone's house and rummage around simply because they left the door unlocked???
I think of it more like watching your neighbor's TV because they set it up near a window and left the curtains open.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
Imperfect analogies are imperfect.
Using someone else's open WiFi does have an impact on them. Though it's likely minimal, there are situations where you could definitely impact them - using significant bandwidth, downloading things that get them naughty MAFIAA letters, or other issues degrading their network. It's not completely zero impact like watching a TV though an open window, but it's not fully utilizing a resource and taking it away from it's owner.
However, it IS unauthorized access. The various '
Re: (Score:3)
No, the problem isn't TWC can't, it is that they don't want to. They have a cushy Government granted Monopoly (franchise agreement) and have pushed for all sorts of anti-competitive regulations on top of it.
Because we haven't broken the Franchise Agreement problem, we aren't really solving anything by adding regulations on top of regulations to fix the problems caused by regulations (Franchise agreements) caused. The foundation is crumbling, and you're worried about the view out your window.
Re: (Score:2)
Good for the dwindling cable TV customers.
When can I purchase a DSL modem instead of paying AT&T $7.00 per month for equipment rental? I tried to purchase it but they refused. They have even raised the prices for "renting" this increasingly outdated VDSL modem. There is no UPS involved, just a 2Wire router.
When I got set up with CenturyLink here, the option was to lease the modem or purchase it. The pricing was set up so that ownership was more than paid for after 13 months of service. I think June of this year was the 13 month point. And coincidentally, either this month or next month, Charter-Spectrum will be set up here at 60MB compared to CL's 12MB; which means I will be jumping ship, and can then actually resell the CL modem.
A shame AT&T is dicking you over by not allowing purchase of the equipmen
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you are in the US you can order a NetGear DM200-100NAS modem to replace the POS 2wire modem. Add your own Wireless Router and there you go. Works perfectly for me on my CenturyLink DSL connection.
Several other DSL modems are available from NewEgg.
Re: (Score:2)
What REALLY sucks is that the NVG589 actually HAS a place to stick a backup battery, but the modem's firmware shuts down literally EVERYTHING except the ability to make and receive voice phone calls (using U-verse's VoIP, of course) when it's on battery power. Disable WiFi? Maybe. But Jesus Christ, how much fucking power are they actually saving by powering down the goddamn ETHERNET PORTS? Especially considering that they STILL have to maintain the VDSL connection and router for VoIP to work?
Hell, if anythi
Re: (Score:2)
In what respect?
Like DVB-C, (I assume) all digital video on cable today is done via QAM, usually statically assigned channels, other times switched-digital video (*shuddering*) which is more common for things like video on demand.
It's just that unlike the OTA broadcasters & receiver manufacturers who can all adhere to the pretty clear cut ATSC standard, cable providers (discounting satellite & FIOS) have zero incentive to make sure that the DVR you rented/purchased from them works on another cable s
Re: (Score:2)
Much hope is being held out for the SiliconDust effort to make a working DVR app [kickstarter.com]... however they are a year behind schedule.
I still have a little bit of hope, too, but they seem to be going in the wrong direction right now. The did a "proof of concept" Android app, then dropped it and it still does very little. There is still no way to view "protected" content, which was the whole reason for using WMC in the first place. And, after having seen how Microsoft shafts everyone (including their customers) whenever they feel like it, they are STILL putting all their effort into Windows 10 "universal" apps and XBox.
So after a year l
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, SiliconDust was INSANE for not just asking Microsoft to sell them the sourcecode and IP rights to Windows Media Center in exchange for equity in SD and an agreement to license PlayReady from Microsoft going forward. Microsoft would have had nothing to lose, since they've basically abandoned WMC anyway, and it would have enabled SiliconDust to have a version working under Windows 10 (with full DRM support) in a matter of months. And it would be an epic win for Microsoft, because you'd still have to buy
Re: (Score:2)
Windows Media Center... which was free in Windows 7, cost you a bit (if you didn't grab it during the first year) in 8, and is no longer available as part of Windows 10.
Much hope is being held out for the SiliconDust effort to make a working DVR app [kickstarter.com]... however they are a year behind schedule.
http://www.windowscentral.com/... [windowscentral.com]
It took a few tries to get it to work, but I can speak from personal firsthand experience that it works on Win10 the way you remember it, down to the guide data downloads.
With respect to other options, I'm hoping that the PlexDVR app allows for live streaming eventually, if SiliconDust doesn't get their life together.
Re: (Score:2)
These days I've just been using the HDHomeRun app for live viewing on my Windows 10 desktop, and recordings on a virtualized Windows 8.1 instance on another machine for my personal use.
Media Center never had a high wife acceptance factor in my home, so I've mostly used it for myself to ensure that even when the household DVR is full, my programs will still be recorded.
Re: (Score:2)
It may well be mind-rot, but there is no shortage of people seeking to rot their minds for many hours at a time. Some of the heavy TV watchers remind me of stoners.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I don't think the consumer is too interested in getting rid of the set top boxes
I can see you've never worked in customer support for a cableco.
Not having to deal with all the issues of that craptacular equipment would result in service that worked far more reliably for the consumer. As a bonus, people would have more control over what they use. The elderly could use a device that gives more simplified controls, for example. Mr Technofetish can have his voice-recognition Guide, the high-volume watcher can have his 4TB DVR, the traveling professional can just use mobile devices, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, nobody else wants those channels, either. They get turned on at the doggy daycare or in the day room at the insane asylum only.
But the reality is that the parent networks/companies want them and they will just charge you the same $120 a month for the 5 channels because their business model isn't based on shrinking their business and shuttering the expanded delivery footprint they enjoy now.
Re: (Score:2)
I had cable TV + internet from Comcast. I only bought the cable TV because you had to in order to get the cheaper rate on internet. They charged me a monthly fee for a cable box and when I tried to actually watch something using it instead of streaming via the internet it was a horrible mess. It would reboot (a 5 minute process) or try to redownload the guide (a 20 minute process) and on the odd occasion it actually worked it was such a clunky painful ad filled experience that I never watched cable for t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's how it used to be about 10 years ago in many parts of the US.
The main thing that killed it was higher speeds. The way it worked just wasn't scalable to VDSL:
* The ISP had to colocate HIS OWN DSLAM at each central office where he wanted to serve customers AND make his own backhaul arrangements.
* AT&T leased a pair of copper wires to the ISP... and getting them to actually do a truck roll and send out an outside lineman to troubleshoot problems almost required divine intervention. And 99.8% of the