# Unlock the Box - FCC - Consumer Reports



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Consumer Reports is backing the Unlock the Box position of the FCC and has a web site where you can submit a supporting comment to the FCC & Congress:

http://unlockthebox.com/ConsumerReports/


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

No thanks. Unlock the box is for the rich, and it is truly dead, dead, dead.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Series3Sub said:


> No thanks. Unlock the box is for the rich, and it is truly dead, dead, dead.


So are you truly against fostering innovation through competition and allowing consumers choice or are you just against the current Pay TV model in general?


----------



## sbillard (Sep 17, 2014)

Series3Sub said:


> No thanks. Unlock the box is for the rich, and it is truly dead, dead, dead.


I'm guessing that somehow you have avoided the Tuning Adapter fiascos.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Series3Sub said:


> No thanks. Unlock the box is for the rich, and it is truly dead, dead, dead.


 I don't know about it being for the rich but with the current congress it's more than dead, not to mention congress has more important things they should be dealing with. Lets leave this to the engineers and keep the politicians far away from it.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Series3Sub said:


> No thanks. Unlock the box is for the rich, and it is truly dead, dead, dead.


How is it for the rich? The whole point of this purposal is to reduce the monthly fees people pay for cable box rental.

Really the cost savings depends on the implementation and your usage. For the average user who just watches TV when it's on or via the MSOs VOD the gateway approach would likely be significantly cheaper then renting a separate box for each room. However for those of us here with multiple 6 tuner TiVos the gateway approach will likely increase our costs.

Whatever they do here it needs to have at least as much functionality as the CableCARD. If they go with the app approach then we TiVo users are going to take a huge step back. We're going to be stuck with whatever limitations our MSOs decide to impose on us. If they want to limit recordings or force us to watch commercials then we'll have to live with that. It'll suck, but it'll be our only option.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

tenthplanet said:


> I don't know about it being for the rich but with the current congress it's more than dead, not to mention congress has more important things they should be dealing with. Lets leave this to the engineers and keep the politicians far away from it.


If the legislators don't get involved, then every MSO will have their own proprietary IP-based system and nobody will be able to own their own set-top box (such as a TiVo). Say goodbye to recording any content off cable.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

DevdogAZ said:


> If the legislators don't get involved, then every MSO will have their own proprietary IP-based system and nobody will be able to own their own set-top box (such as a TiVo). Say goodbye to recording any content off cable.


I can certainly understand why cable-subscriber TiVo-owners are concerned about this. But I also understand that those folks constitute a pretty small percentage of US television viewers. I don't have strong feelings about the issue either way but I think it's a legitimate question to ask whether Unlock the Box is attempting to solve a problem that hardly anyone (outside of this forum) is concerned about. Given that consumers can choose between the service/hardware packages offered by cable, satellite and, in some places telco and/or fiber TV providers, plus a growing number of internet streaming TV services delivered to a range of consumer-owned devices, is there sufficient public demand for government intervention in the marketplace to force pay TV providers to make their services compatible with a new universal retail hardware standard?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I think CE manufacturers, like TiVo and Google, will continue to push for an open standard on our behalf. The only way they're going to be able to be competitive in this market is if the system allows them low level access to the raw streams. If the MSOs get their way and retail devices are just dumb boxes running their "app" then there is really no reason for anyone to get into this market, because there is nothing they can do to differentiate themselves from one another. People will just buy the cheapest box on the market because they'll essentially all be the same. 

Also if the MSOs are able to use this to kill the DVR there are going to be a lot of upset people. The system, and the consumers, aren't ready for a pure VOD world yet. And if MSOs start using this new system to do things like force commercials or limit viewing windows then it's going to effect more then just TiVo owners. It's going to effect everyone who's grown accustom to having a DVR.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> Also if the MSOs are able to use this to kill the DVR there are going to be a lot of upset people. The system, and the consumers, aren't ready for a pure VOD world yet. And if MSOs start using this new system to do things like force commercials or limit viewing windows then it's going to effect more then just TiVo owners. It's going to effect everyone who's grown accustom to having a DVR.


Well, I would agree that IF some MSOs did away with time-shifted viewing in which viewers could FF past commercials, then there would be a lot of unhappy consumers. We would likely see competing providers, such as DirecTV or an OTT streaming service like PS Vue, attracting those viewers by continuing to offer traditional DVR-type service with ad-skipping. If all pay TV providers ceased to offer that kind of functionality (which seems a little unlikely barring some kind of coordinated activity in violation of anti-trust law), then I think we would definitely see widespread consumer demand for renewed government intervention via new regulations. But I kinda think Comcast and Charter are aware of that, which is why they probably won't go so far as to do away with ad-skippable time shifting.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Wouldn't many go to commercial limited/free Hulu ?


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

jth tv said:


> Wouldn't many go to commercial limited/free Hulu ?


I'd go to a multi-input capture card and fast forwarding past the $#@! commercials on my own recording of their streamed content .


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

Unlock The Box. Prediction: Everything Goes Direct Alla-cart, by passing the MSO.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Joe3 said:


> Unlock The Box. Prediction: Everything Goes Direct Alla-cart, by passing the MSO.


You forgot to finish you sentence: and then MSOs raise price of Internet access to $200/mo.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

atmuscarella said:


> You forgot to finish you sentence: and then MSOs raise price of Internet access to $200/mo.


Or switch to metered pricing.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

If we ever get to the point where cablecos are just dump internet pipes that aren't acting as subscription TV middle-men, I can imagine local governments gaining the authority to regulate internet service rates like a utility. Although that could well depend on how many different options for internet access a locality has -- with pending advances in wireless tech (5G, as well as millimeter wave for the last mile from the likes of Starry), perhaps we'll see more competition among broadband ISPs in next few years...


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

If the telcos get on the ball and start doing FTH in all areas then the cable companies wont have such a monopoly on high speed internet. Right now most areas have two choices, cable at 30+Mbps and DSL at 3-6Mbps. That's not really a good choice, so the cable company has a virtual monopoly. In areas where there is a choice between cable and fiber prices for internet, and TV, are more reasonable then in areas where the cable company knows you really have no choice.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Joe3 said:


> Unlock The Box. Prediction: Everything Goes Direct Alla-cart, by passing the MSO.


 It reminds me of someone who said "I only watch 7 channels, why can't I just pay for that". My answer:" Fine, 10 dollars per channel times 7, that will be 70 dollars please, plus Fees and Taxes  "


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

"Channels" are far too coarse for a la carte. I don't want channels. I want individual programs .


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

You already have that but you don't like the price.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

wizwor said:


> You already have that but you don't like the price.


Right now your only option is to "buy" each episode for $3/ea. If they offered a cheaper option that allowed you to watch an episode once and delete I might actually consider that route.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

tomhorsley said:


> "Channels" are far too coarse for a la carte. I don't want channels. I want individual programs .


You have that option now. You can buy pretty much any show you want from any number of providers (Amazon, Vudu, Fandango now, etc.). You can also buy access to larger groups of programs via service such as Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu, ect..

What I don't understand is this desire of some to force a VoD world on the rest of us via the desire to destroy traditional Pay TV and linear broadcasts. The simple reality is that if people want to watch lots of new programing and sports per day a VoD/pay per event only world is going to cost allot more money and/or force the watching of commercials than the current traditional Pay TV or OTA models with a DVR.

If there is anyone out there that is foolish enough to believe they are going to be able to pay a few $10/mo sub fees and get access to all or even most of the new programing and sports being currently produced by/for the cable & broadcast networks and that it is going to be commercial free, I have some great swamp land on Mars you can invest in, just send my all your money and I am sure it will double in minutes .

My advise is enjoy the current systems. We have lots of choice and I want it to stay the way or get better with true choice in what STB/DVR we can use with any and all Pay TV providers.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Yes the current linear broadcast method combined with a 6 tuner Roamio with SkipMode for most recordings is DVR Nirvana. It's going to be all downhill from here going forwards most likely. Streaming has its uses, but I don't want it to become the dominant method of viewing in my household where I no longer control over how to view it.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Nail hit on head, Kevin. Some folks here think VOD everything is nirvana, and sure it may be as long as you're willing to cede control over how it's all presented. It's not a tradeoff I'm going to be happy about, and I hope the FCC stands its ground and forces open access to cable and sat programming because it's really the last chance companies like Tivo have to stay in the market.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

But the real question is... How much longer will linear broadcast of content be a viable business model? At some point that's no longer going to be profitable and the well is going to run dry.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

Choice must be the rationality behind unlocking the box. Anybody, watching the Pursuit Channel? Anyone, think watching a Bull Moose is worth 10 dollars a month? 

If you do, great. However, I am not that into Bull Moose for 10 dollars or ten cents a month. I should not have to pay for "not" watching a Bull Moose. I should not be locked into paying for what I believe is Bull S--t.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Joe3 said:


> Choice must be the rationality behind unlocking the box. Anybody, watching the Pursuit Channel? Anyone, think watching a Bull Moose is worth 10 dollars a month?
> 
> If you do, great. However, I am not that into Bull Moose for 10 dollars or ten cents a month. I should not have to pay for "not" watching a Bull Moose. I should not be locked into paying for what I believe is Bull S--t.


You can either have several dozen channels, most of which you don't watch and most of which you'll pay less than $0.20/month for, and that means the channels you do watch are also cheap, or you can subscribe to a few channels that you watch, and they will not be cheap.

In other words, do you want ESPN to cost $20/mo, ESPN2 to cost $10/mo, and FX, USA, TNT, TBS, CNN, HGTV, TLC, Discovery, etc. to each cost $5/mo?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

But that's not really the MSOs choice. In most cases these lesser watched channels are part of a bundle with more popular channels and the content providers offer no option to separate them. So the Pursuit Channel might be bundled with say Discovery and your MSO may not be able to broadcast Discovery without also broadcasting Pursuit. (I don't know which channel Pursuit is tied to, if any) This is the same reason we're all forced to pay $8-$10/mo for ESPN even if we don't watch sports. Because ABC requires MSOs to make ESPN a basic cable channel if they want to carry any ABC/Disney network.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Joe3 said:


> Choice must be the rationality behind unlocking the box. Anybody, watching the Pursuit Channel? Anyone, think watching a Bull Moose is worth 10 dollars a month?
> 
> If you do, great. However, I am not that into Bull Moose for 10 dollars or ten cents a month. I should not have to pay for "not" watching a Bull Moose. I should not be locked into paying for what I believe is Bull S--t.


Unless you think pay per view is a good idea I suggest you enjoy bundling.

No one watches everything, doesn't matter if you are talking about the video traditional cable bundles via channels, the video bundle offered via traditional premium channels like HBO, the video bundles offered via subscription services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, or Hulu, or even the video bundles offered for "free" via OTA broadcasts. It is all the same you watch some very small fraction of the total available video in what ever bundle you have.

I understand the desire for custom bundles. But I find it highly unlikely we will ever be able to have exactly (and only) what we want at a price that isn't higher than just taking an existing video bundle of some form. I personally have decided that OTA is almost good enough and have just added Amazon Prime as my only paid video bundle along with some Pay per view via video rentals. If one feels their traditional cable bundle is not worth what it costs there certainly are other options.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

For people who have at least 10 Mbps internet and want a decent bundle of popular cable channels, I think Sony's PS Vue service is about the best deal going right now. I'm not sure we'll see any time soon (maybe ever) a more competitively priced bundle than their Access Slim package of 55 major cable channels all at 720p HD with 4-week cloud DVR included for $30 without local nets or $40 with local nets. That's a regular, no-contract price without any extra hidden fees. (I get the objections of why some people wouldn't want it -- it's streaming, can't save local copies of shows, etc.)

I know some people say they can get all that for the same price by bundling TV with their internet service but I just don't think that's possible where I live. I'm paying a promo rate of $30 for standalone 25 Mbps internet from Comcast (but could instead get 10 Mbps for $20). I looked at all combinations of Comcast, AT&T Uverse, DISH and DirecTV that would give me broadband plus most of the same cable channels with DVR service. The cheapest option would be keeping my Comcast internet and adding PS Vue for a total of $70 (with locals, if that's an option). The next cheapest would be keeping Comcast internet and adding DISH with a Hopper for a total of $90 plus fees on a two-year contract.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

There is no making everybody happy, some people could be offered a DVR for a buck a month and would go but that's 12 bucks a year . Then there is the gov't will lower what I'm paying (choice is a code word for a I'm paying too much).


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> But the real question is... How much longer will linear broadcast of content be a viable business model? At some point that's no longer going to be profitable and the well is going to run dry.


Well there are only a few ways to pay for video. The best I can tell they fall into either Advertiser supported, Subscriptions, Pay Per view, or Pay to purchase.

The linear or "live TV" model uses advertiser support and/or consumer subscriptions as their primary revenue source plus a limited amount of Pay Per view for live special events and after broadcast pay per view/pay to purchase sales. So are advertisers refusing to support linear TV or are consumers no longer subscribing to it? Not at the moment, predicting when or if either will happen is nothing more than a guess.

Of course those who for some reason want the end of linear TV tend to forget that VoD (the only alternative to Linear TV) will have to obtain revenue from the same source I listed above and a move from linear TV to VoD doesn't do anything to reduce the cost of producing new video. So while it may be relatively cheap to obtain older video via VoD subscription services, if the current volume of new video creation is going to continue and only be delivered via VoD instead of via linear broadcasts the same revenue will still have to be provided. And of course there is the issue with actually live news or sports events that require a linear broadcast to actually be live.

I personally do not expect linear TV to go away anytime soon. That doesn't mean I don't expect VoD use to also continue to grow - I do. I also expect video consumption over all to continue to grow as it becomes easier to consume video in more places.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Easier and cheaper not just to consume but also to produce and send. Pretty much every plot has to be public domain by now and they've gone from film to video and editing and distribution. The cable systems and fiber have been built.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

atmuscarella said:


> Well there are only a few ways to pay for video. The best I can tell they fall into either Advertiser supported, Subscriptions, Pay Per view, or Pay to purchase.
> 
> The linear or "live TV" model uses advertiser support and/or consumer subscriptions as their primary revenue source plus a limited amount of Pay Per view for live special events and after broadcast pay per view/pay to purchase sales. So are advertisers refusing to support linear TV or are consumers no longer subscribing to it? Not at the moment, predicting when or if either will happen is nothing more than a guess.
> 
> ...


The younger generations are growing up with DVRs, VOD and Netflix as their primary source of video. Once they are the majority linear TV will be dead. Probably 2-3 decades off, but it will happen eventually. Even news and sports will move to an on-demand model. Those that wish to watch live will still be able to via live streaming, but it will still be VOD and not traditional linear broadcast TV.

Now having commercials is pretty much a given. In fact in a VOD only world we'll likely have forced commercials on all first run content. We're living in the hay day right now with DVRs. We're able to watch content whenever we want AND skip past the commercials that pay for that content. That gravy train isn't going to last forever. Eventually your options are going to be to watch commercials, pay a higher price for content without commercials, or wait for the content to get old enough to show up on a second tier subscription service like Netflix or Amazon.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> The younger generations are growing up with DVRs, VOD and Netflix as their primary source of video. Once they are the majority linear TV will be dead. Probably 2-3 decades off, but it will happen eventually. Even news and sports will move to an on-demand model. Those that wish to watch live will still be able to via live streaming, but it will still be VOD and not traditional linear broadcast TV.
> 
> Now having commercials is pretty much a given. In fact in a VOD only world we'll likely have forced commercials on all first run content. We're living in the hay day right now with DVRs. We're able to watch content whenever we want AND skip past the commercials that pay for that content. That gravy train isn't going to last forever. Eventually your options are going to be to watch commercials, pay a higher price for content without commercials, or wait for the content to get old enough to show up on a second tier subscription service like Netflix or Amazon.


Yup. I agree with everything you say. Except, I'm not even sure that linear TV will last until 2036...


----------



## thyname (Dec 27, 2010)

This is will all end up in each provider having their own "channel" - as in their own app - similar to Showtime app where you can watch "live" broadcast, or, in case of live sports, like the NFL broadcasts on Yahoo. We will either pay for the "app", just like with pay for Showtime subscription (their app), or free but add supported and cluttered.

The other side of the coin is that internet prices will skyrocket, as the MSOs will compensate for lost revenue on TV packages.

At the end, we'll end up no better, and even worse than current status.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I suspect that cable companies will eventually split their businesses in two. They will have the ISP business which will own the pipe into your home and they will have a video delivery business which will convert to a pure IP solution akin to PSVue/Sling.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

It's hard to get excited about the unlocking of boxes when it seems like we are bypassing them as it is.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> It's hard to get excited about the unlocking of boxes when it seems like we are bypassing them as it is.


For TiVo users the main advanage would be access to VOD for all users and not just those in special areas where the MSO made a special deal with TiVo.

It would also eliminate the tuning adapter.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Yeah I just figure I won't be using a traditional cable tv provider by the time cable boxes are unlocked. Family already hasone foot through the door as it is.

lately I've watched a lot of sports via replay in the ESPN3 or NBCSports websites on my Mac Mini in my office which is also connected to the hdtv on the wall. Just go find the event and hit play. I don't have to set up recordings or pad them or worry about tuners nor storage nor delays. I just look up Wimbledon Federer vs Cilic and watch it. I dn't have to skim through a recording nor hope the match didn't run long or get rain delayed 3 hrs and not be there. ESPN3 does that all for me.

Granted I don't have a nice remote so commercial skipping isn't something I can do unless I'm sitting at the desk. But that ability to just watch the content you paid for is the future.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> For people who have at least 10 Mbps internet and want a decent bundle of popular cable channels, I think Sony's PS Vue service is about the best deal going right now. I'm not sure we'll see any time soon (maybe ever) a more competitively priced bundle than their Access Slim package of 55 major cable channels all at 720p HD with 4-week cloud DVR included for $30 without local nets or $40 with local nets. That's a regular, no-contract price without any extra hidden fees. (I get the objections of why some people wouldn't want it -- it's streaming, can't save local copies of shows, etc.) I know some people say they can get all that for the same price by bundling TV with their internet service but I just don't think that's possible where I live. I'm paying a promo rate of $30 for standalone 25 Mbps internet from Comcast (but could instead get 10 Mbps for $20). I looked at all combinations of Comcast, AT&T Uverse, DISH and DirecTV that would give me broadband plus most of the same cable channels with DVR service. The cheapest option would be keeping my Comcast internet and adding PS Vue for a total of $70 (with locals, if that's an option). The next cheapest would be keeping Comcast internet and adding DISH with a Hopper for a total of $90 plus fees on a two-year contract.


This is exactly my experience as well. I have 200Mbps internet with basic cable channels thru Oceanic TWC (soon to be Charter) and PS Vue Elite thru VPN to Philly.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

HarperVision said:


> This is exactly my experience as well. I have 200Mbps internet with basic cable channels thru Oceanic TWC (soon to be Charter) and PS Vue Elite thru VPN to Philly.


I had just researched this stuff for a friend who's internet + TV bill from AT&T Uverse has gone up from the original promo rate to something like $110/mo (with no premium channels). I think she's probably going to switch to cable internet plus PS Vue and maybe use an OTA antenna for live locals since PS Vue doesn't carry the locals here in Nashville. That would cut her monthly bill in half.

How do you like PS Vue so far? What device are you streaming it through? What do you think of HD picture quality, responsiveness, UI, etc?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I had just researched this stuff for a friend who's internet + TV bill from AT&T Uverse has gone up from the original promo rate to something like $110/mo (with no premium channels). I think she's probably going to switch to cable internet plus PS Vue and maybe use an OTA antenna for live locals since PS Vue doesn't carry the locals here in Nashville. That would cut her monthly bill in half. How do you like PS Vue so far? What device are you streaming it through? What do you think of HD picture quality, responsiveness, UI, etc?


I like it a lot and am actually quite impressed with how good the PQ is, given that I get it from Philly using a VPN that maxes out at 10-12Mbps. I doubt I get that for the actual Vue stream though.

I use FireTV boxes which all things considered in my situation is still very responsive. Much better than my Slingbox at the same location. I like the UI but it is different than standard linear boxes like TiVo and other MSO boxes. Maybe like the X1, but I don't have experience with that.

It's not centric on channel numbers and guides it's more tiles and icons and on demand and show centric. I REALLY like that you can just select a show as "Add to My Shows" and it automatically records them ALL no matter the channel or time and there's no limits other than the 28 Day rule which doesn't bother me since if I don't watch by then I probably won't. If I do want to it'll be on OD or a repeat anyway.

Why don't you just sign up and do the free trial?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Why do you VPN from Philly? Don't they offer PSVue nationwide now?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

trip1eX said:


> Granted I don't have a nice remote so commercial skipping isn't something I can do unless I'm sitting at the desk. But that ability to just watch the content you paid for is the future.


wait, aren't you forced to watch commercials even if you were 'at your desk'?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> You forgot to finish you sentence: and then MSOs raise price of Internet access to $200/mo.





Dan203 said:


> Or switch to metered pricing.


Comcast is proving Dan right: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...-under-data-caps/ar-BBu6B4O?ocid=ansmsnnews11


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Why do you VPN from Philly? Don't they offer PSVue nationwide now?


Eagles, Phillies, Flyers, 76ers and Comcast SportsNet!


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> Comcast is proving Dan right: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...-under-data-caps/ar-BBu6B4O?ocid=ansmsnnews11


Yeah, but with a cap of 1 TB, I just find it hard to care. Now I didn't like the old 300 GB cap I had with Comcast; even though I never came close to it, I could imagine doing so. But I'll never hit 1 TB. Here in Nashville, I'm sure any homes that consume that much data will just switch to uncapped Google Fiber anyway...


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

mattack said:


> wait, aren't you forced to watch commercials even if you were 'at your desk'?


If you really need to you can click ahead in the time line with the mouse. They don't even show half the commercials anyway. Just the placeholders. In other words you are skipping over (dead) air. Another nice thing, with the EuroCup replays, is halftime is automatically skipped.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, but with a cap of 1 TB, I just find it hard to care. Now I didn't like the old 300 GB cap I had with Comcast; even though I never came close to it, I could imagine doing so. But I'll never hit 1 TB. Here in Nashville, I'm sure any homes that consume that much data will just switch to uncapped Google Fiber anyway...


You probably did not mind the 250GB cap when it was announced in 2008 either. Comcast characterized these 'web hogs' as consumers of '30,000 songs, 250,000 pictures or 13 million emails in a month'. Of course, Netflix started streaming in 2007.

When we left Comcast, we had unlimited, but had received informational warnings of exceeding 300GB twice (school vacation weeks in the winter).
Netflix estimates 7GB/hr for UHD. 1T of data gone in 143 hours. That's five hours a day of one stream.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

wizwor said:


> You probably did not mind the 250GB cap when it was announced in 2008 either. Comcast characterized these 'web hogs' as consumers of '30,000 songs, 250,000 pictures or 13 million emails in a month'. Of course, Netflix started streaming in 2007.
> 
> When we left Comcast, we had unlimited, but had received informational warnings of exceeding 300GB twice (school vacation weeks in the winter).
> Netflix estimates 7GB/hr for UHD. 1T of data gone in 143 hours. That's five hours a day of one stream.


I would guess that UHD and HRD data would be what Comcast is concerned about in the future when many people do have UHD TVs and know it and want to get a UHD movies, I have friends that have a UHD TVs and don't use the UHD part, use Netflix with a TiVo Roamio to get their movies, they love the TV picture they are getting, so I not going to say anything, except to say these people are not on this forum.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I kind of wonder how the new official partnership between Comcast and Netflix works into the data cap conversation especially since Comcast will get a piece of the action.


----------



## achalupa (Oct 27, 2008)

mattack said:


> wait, aren't you forced to watch commercials even if you were 'at your desk'?


If you DVR a show on PS Vue you can FF/RW through commercials. I don't watch a lot on Vue but I haven't found anything that won't allow skipping commercials.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> You probably did not mind the 250GB cap when it was announced in 2008 either. Comcast characterized these 'web hogs' as consumers of '30,000 songs, 250,000 pictures or 13 million emails in a month'. Of course, Netflix started streaming in 2007.
> 
> When we left Comcast, we had unlimited, but had received informational warnings of exceeding 300GB twice (school vacation weeks in the winter).
> Netflix estimates 7GB/hr for UHD. 1T of data gone in 143 hours. That's five hours a day of one stream.


I've never averaged five hours of streaming per day. And I don't yet have UHD. So again, I don't really care. If you choose to stream more than 1 TB per month, you can pay the overage fees. You're not going to get any sympathy from me.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> I've never averaged five hours of streaming per day. And I don't yet have UHD. So again, I don't really care. If you choose to stream more than 1 TB per month, you can pay the overage fees. You're not going to get any sympathy from me.


Yet you did not like the old cap you never got close to?


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom (Dec 17, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> I've never averaged five hours of streaming per day. And I don't yet have UHD. So again, I don't really care. If you choose to stream more than 1 TB per month, you can pay the overage fees. You're not going to get any sympathy from me.


The moment you have a family with 2 kids you will blow through that 1TB data cap nearly all the time. This data cap goes against average family usage.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> I've never averaged five hours of streaming per day. And I don't yet have UHD. So again, I don't really care. If you choose to stream more than 1 TB per month, you can pay the overage fees. You're not going to get any sympathy from me.


We are only at the beginning. The minute MSOs decide that streaming services are actually causing them to loose significant amounts of revenue it will get worse. My guess is; much worse more with lower caps and high prices for those without cable subs. The only places where this may not happen are those rare places that have true alternatives and that assumes the alternatives don't do the same thing (put in caps and/or raise prices for those who only want Internet access) which I think is more likely than not.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

BRiT wtfdotcom said:


> The moment you have a family with 2 kids you will blow through that 1TB data cap nearly all the time. This data cap goes against average family usage.


I don't plan to have a family with 2 kids. But since you do, and your household uses more data than mine, maybe you should pay more. (Or not. I really don't care what you pay for internet, I care what I pay.)

As to the broader question of whether we'll see an industry-wide shift to onerous data caps or metered usage, maybe, but I don't see any signs that we're moving in that direction. Comcast is rolling out nationwide data caps but caps that only 1% of their users exceed. And it's a cap that's over 3x greater than their previous cap. I'm not aware of another major US ISP with enforced data caps.

Frankly, I think a lot of the griping on here about data caps is more a way of voicing displeasure over the rise of video streaming (by implying that streaming isn't feasible or will ultimately be more costly). These folks seem to see streaming (or any change or innovation in TV, really) as a threat to the way they've gotten used to consuming TV, through traditional cable (or OTA) with a TiVo or other DVR.


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom (Dec 17, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> I don't plan to have a family with 2 kids. But since you do, and your household uses more data than mine, maybe you should pay more. (Or not. I really don't care what you pay for internet, I care what I pay.)
> 
> As to the broader question of whether we'll see an industry-wide shift to onerous data caps or metered usage, maybe, but I don't see any signs that we're moving in that direction. Comcast is rolling out nationwide data caps but caps that only 1% of their users exceed. And it's a cap that's over 3x greater than their previous cap. I'm not aware of another major US ISP with enforced data caps.
> 
> Frankly, I think a lot of the griping on here about data caps is more a way of voicing displeasure over the rise of video streaming (by implying that streaming isn't feasible or will ultimately be more costly). These folks seem to see streaming (or any change or innovation in TV, really) as a threat to the way they've gotten used to consuming TV, through traditional cable (or OTA) with a TiVo or other DVR.


Cox Communications has enforced datacaps. They initially had 2TB cap on their top tier services but then stealthily changed it to 1TB. Shame on them.

Armstrong has enforced datacaps of 500GB on their top tier and only if you bundle at least 3 services with them, otherwise its down to 300GB. They have no options for more data except for paying in 10GB or 50GB increments.

As for the datacap increase of over 3x, I should absolutely hope it would finally be adjusted. Its a sad thing for them to only increase by 3x. My cable provider had a 250gb cap way back in 2006. It has been 10 years since then and just now other providers are finally going beyond the limits of 2006! Shame on them.

They both still advertise their Internet services as unlimited. This is the other part of what I have issues with. Shame on them.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

BRiT wtfdotcom said:


> They both still advertise their Internet services as unlimited.


Are you sure they actually say "unlimited"? Maybe they say something like "All the data you can download" (where all you can download happens to be 1TB .


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

BRiT wtfdotcom said:


> Cox Communications has enforced datacaps. They initially had 2TB cap on their top tier services but then stealthily changed it to 1TB. Shame on them.
> 
> Armstrong has enforced datacaps of 500GB on their top tier and only if you bundle at least 3 services with them, otherwise its down to 300GB. They have no options for more data except for paying in 10GB or 50GB increments.
> 
> ...


As Gomer Pyle would say, SHAME SHAME SHAME!


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Frankly, I think a lot of the griping on here about data caps is more a way of voicing displeasure over the rise of video streaming (by implying that streaming isn't feasible or will ultimately be more costly). These folks seem to see streaming (or any change or innovation in TV, really) as a threat to the way they've gotten used to consuming TV, through traditional cable (or OTA) with a TiVo or other DVR.


No, a lot of griping about caps here is about the sad state of internet access in this country, and our government's utter lack of interest in regulating monopolies/oligopolies as the necessary utilities that they now are.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

slowbiscuit said:


> No, a lot of griping about caps here is about the sad state of internet access in this country, and our government's utter lack of interest in regulating monopolies/oligopolies as the necessary utilities that they now are.


Perhaps we should be getting the World Court involved, since the United Nations has declared restricting Internet access to be a human rights violation.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

ej42137 said:


> Perhaps we should be getting the World Court involved, since the United Nations has declared restricting Internet access to be a human rights violation.


Yes, more government regulation always leads to optimal outcomes. And getting the UN involved would be even better, ha!


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, more government regulation always leads to optimal outcomes. And getting the UN involved would be even better, ha!


I wonder if the Hague would be bound by the arbitration clause in our TiVo agreement?


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

ej42137 said:


> Perhaps we should be getting the World Court involved, since the United Nations has declared restricting Internet access to be a human rights violation.


The World Court ordered China to back off of its territorial claims in the South China Sea. China told them what they can do with their order.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

CharlesH said:


> The World Court ordered China to back off of its territorial claims in the South China Sea. China told them what they can do with their order.


You have a point; I can't disagree that China probably cares more about world opinion and human rights than the average cable company.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Yup. I agree with everything you say. Except, I'm not even sure that linear TV will last until 2036...


GfK Report: OTA Growing, OTT Niche










Well, OTA only households increased another 2% (to 17% of US TV households) in 2016. OTA is 100% linear. OTT also increased by 2% (to 6% of US TV households). That increase includes Vue and Sling TV subscribers -- Vue and Sling TV are linear. I would say that reports of the death of linear programming are premature.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Vue has a DVR feature. OTA also supports DVRs. And OTT is mostly VOD. 

This report has no data to support your assertion that these people are watching linear TV.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Vue has a DVR feature. OTA also supports DVRs. And OTT is mostly VOD.
> 
> This report has no data to support your assertion that these people are watching linear TV.


Ya most of us around here use linear TV to create our own VoD libraries. I do know people who actually watch linear TV live, but my guess is they are not a growing in number. That said how people use/consumer linear TV doesn't seem to bother the broadcasters or advertisers much.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> Well, OTA only households increased another 2% (to 17% of US TV households) in 2016. OTA is 100% linear. OTT also increased by 2% (to 6% of US TV households). That increase includes Vue and Sling TV subscribers -- Vue and Sling TV are linear. I would say that reports of the death of linear programming are premature.


As others have said above, many folks record linear TV to, in effect, turn it into time-shifted on-demand TV. I would bet that the number of people who watch live (not recorded) linear TV (outside of live events like sports, newscasts, awards shows, etc.) continues to drop.

Be that as it may, I certainly don't think linear TV is going away in the next five or ten years. The timeframe I referenced was 20 years, which is a pretty long time in the world of TV and consumer technology. Think about how much TV changed from the early 1960s to the early 80s. We went from virtually everything being watched in black and white live as it aired on only three national TV networks that could be accessed only by OTA antennas to several national networks airing color content through cable TV, watched on TVs with remote controls and VCRs connected that allowed viewers to record and time-shift TV content, as well as buy or rent movies and shows.

That was a pretty big jump! My guess is that 20 years from now, the video entertainment landscape will have changed just as much, if not more. Maybe that means the end of linear broadcast TV networks and maybe it doesn't. But technology will continue to advance, consumer preferences will continue to evolve, and growing businesses will continue to try to disrupt the status quo to make money.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> That said how people use/consumer linear TV doesn't seem to bother the broadcasters or advertisers much.


For ad-supported networks, like NBC and USA, they had MUCH rather you watch it live, without the ability to skip the ads, than to watch a recording of it, where you CAN skip the ads. For ad-free subscription networks like Showtime, yeah, they could care less as long as you're enjoying the content and continuing to pay the monthly fee.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Fox sued Dish over it's auto-hop feature and several of the networks sued COX over their cloud DVR, so they certainly do care about DVR use. Their nirvana would be a world where DVRs didn't exist and they could force you to either watch live or watch via VOD with forced ads. In fact I seem to remember reading something once where an executive at Fox equated DVRs to stealing.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> Vue has a DVR feature. OTA also supports DVRs. And OTT is mostly VOD.
> 
> This report has no data to support your assertion that these people are watching linear TV.


Sorry, SuperMod, Broadcast Television is 100% LINEAR. The fact that some consumers SCHEDULE a download so they can timeshift _their_ viewing doesn't change that fact. Even if you want to believe that this is VOD, it it VOD that cannot exist without linear broadcasts, so there is no way linear is going away -- not even in two to three decades.

Broadcast television stations have been delivering linear television for nearly 100 years. The VCR did not kill linear television, the switch to digital did not kill linear television, and the smart phone is not going to kill linear television. Some people just want to turn on the television at the end of the day and watch the best thing that is on.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

BRiT wtfdotcom said:


> Armstrong has enforced datacaps of 500GB on their top tier and only if you bundle at least 3 services with them, otherwise its down to 300GB. They have no options for more data except for paying in 10GB or 50GB increments.


Actually, Armstrong's low end cap is only 200GB - when you have internet service only (no cable or phone).

And, instead of paying $10 per 50GB overage fees, you can "prepay" ahead of time for extra data at a discount... $20/month for an extra 100GB, or $50 for 250GB, or $100 for 500GB.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

wizwor said:


> Sorry, SuperMod, Broadcast Television is 100% LINEAR. The fact that some consumers SCHEDULE a download so they can timeshift _their_ viewing doesn't change that fact. Even if you want to believe that this is VOD, it it VOD that cannot exist without linear broadcasts, so there is no way linear is going away -- not even in two to three decades.
> 
> Broadcast television stations have been delivering linear television for nearly 100 years. The VCR did not kill linear television, the switch to digital did not kill linear television, and the smart phone is not going to kill linear television. Some people just want to turn on the television at the end of the day and watch the best thing that is on.


I realize that the delivery is linear, but the consumption is not. So while TV may still technically be linear a large portion of the population is consuming it as if it's VOD, and the study you cited does not account for that in any way. It only discerns how people receive their content, not how they actually consume it. And how they consume it is very important to the producers and advertisers that pay for that content to be made.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

wizwor said:


> Sorry, SuperMod, Broadcast Television is 100% LINEAR. The fact that some consumers SCHEDULE a download so they can timeshift _their_ viewing doesn't change that fact. Even if you want to believe that this is VOD, it it VOD that cannot exist without linear broadcasts, so there is no way linear is going away -- not even in two to three decades.
> 
> Broadcast television stations have been delivering linear television for nearly 100 years. The VCR did not kill linear television, the switch to digital did not kill linear television, and the smart phone is not going to kill linear television. Some people just want to turn on the television at the end of the day and watch the best thing that is on.


Spoken like someone who grew up with 3 channels and had no choice but to watch what was on. 

Today's kids aren't growing up that way though.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> I realize that the delivery is linear, but the consumption is not. So while TV may still technically be linear a large portion of the population is consuming it as if it's VOD, and the study you cited does not account for that in any way. It only discerns how people receive their content, not how they actually consume it. And how they consume it is very important to the producers and advertisers that pay for that content to be made.


That's OK. Like I said, it's all mental masturbation. What really matters is that traditional television is alive and well nearly 50 years after the arrival of cable and satellite and nearly a decade after the Digital Transition. As long as advertisers are willing to support broadcast television, the premium providers will be kept in check.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

trip1eX said:


> Spoken like someone who grew up with 3 channels and had no choice but to watch what was on.
> 
> Today's kids aren't growing up that way though.


You're not far from right. I grew up with 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 27, 38, and 56 -- PBS, the national networks, and a couple independents. I remember waking up Saturday morning to a test pattern, then the farm report, the Boomtown. It really wasn't bad. Cable arrived when I was a teenager. I loved HBO and MTV. When we bought our home in 1990, the first thing I did was call the local cable company. When they wanted $5,000 to install cable, I put up an antenna. People actually came to my house to watch the Patriots play football on Sunday because I could pull in a Maine station when the home games were blacked out.

We did get cable later then Dish then Comcast. I witnessed the transformation of HBO from Home Box Office to a pay channel. I was there when 100 channels of crap arrived and when digital music swelled the channel count. In 2010, I fired Comcast and began the transition to OTA/OTT. Since then, I have transitioned to nearly 100% OTA. I do not have three channels or even eight. We have 36 channels! Movies, dramas, sitcoms, and more how-to and watch-me than you can shake a stick at.

We have something called PlayOn which allows us to watch web-available episodes of cable television programs, but, for the most part, we watch what comes over the antenna.


2.1 WGBH Boston (PBS Prime)
2.2 PBS World
4.1 WBZ Boston (CBS)
4.2 Decades
5.1 WCVB Boston (ABC)
5.2 MeTV
7.1 WHDH Boston (NBC)
7.2 This TV
8.2 Heroes and Icons
9.1 WMUR Manchester, NH (ABC)
9.2 MeTV
11.1 WENH Durham (PBS Prime)
11.2 PBS Explore
11.3 PBS World
11.4 PBS Create
25.1 WFXT Boston (Fox)
25.2 Fox Movies!
25.3 LAFF
38.1 WSBK Boston (MyTV)
44.1 WGBX Boston (PBS)
44.3 PBS Create
44.4 PBS Kids
50.1 WBIN Derry, NH
50.2 Antenna TV
50.3 Grit
56.1 WLVI Boston (CW)
56.2 BUZZER
62.1 Cozi
62.3 The Works
62.4 Comet
66.2 BounceTV
66.3 GetTV
66.4 Escape
68.1 ION
68.2 Qubo
68.3 ION Life
We also have Prime (mostly for shipping) and we have an extensive library of optical media. We're not waiting for Lawrence Welk to come on.

I know some of you TiVo fanboys can get a bit pretentious, but, personally, I feel bad for someone who cannot get through a weekend without tuning in to some crappy sitcom. I don't think Game of Thrones is worth $200/month.

This discussion seems to be about the viability of Linear Programming. I do not think there is any chance that Linear Programming will go away in our lifetimes.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> This discussion seems to be about the viability of Linear Programming. I do not think there is any chance that Linear Programming will go away in our lifetimes.


I absolutely see the lasting appeal of LIVE programming for things like sports, breaking news, special events, etc. I believe those live events will account for an increasing percentage of linear broadcasting's viewership going forward. But will those live broadcasts always be embedded within linear broadcast channels? I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not.

Looking at OTA linear broadcasting, specifically, I do wonder whether ATSC 3.0 will breathe new life into the format (by providing higher picture quality and intertwining broadcast and internet content) or instead fracture it (because ATSC 3.0 and ATSC 1.0 broadcasts must co-exist and share the existing -- soon to be decreased -- available spectrum), leading to reduced viewership in the future and at some point prompting the public to decide those airwaves better serve the public for the purpose of wireless internet rather than TV broadcasts.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

I just don't see ATSC 3.0 working like that. I expect ATSC 3.0 to arrive as a Roku or Fire TV app streamed from a 'special' router provided as part of a Pay TV package. Something like Vue or Sling TV. Whatever local ATSC 3.0 content is available will come as a bonus.

ATSC 3.0 packages will not require high speed internet, so they will be much more competitive on price than OTT alternatives. People may continue to have an internet provider, but they will not need an expensive one. A lot of people will use cellular plans via hot spot or just use a phone rather than a connected computer. 

There will be no shortage of bandwidth. ATSC 3.0 rollout will be much slower than anticipated. The reverse auction will not have a great impact on broadcast television. The most popular channels will not participate. The ones that leave will leave because the buyout is a lot more than they make. A lot of PBS stations will go away -- PBS has already transitioned to OTT and 'nationalized' their programming. If you have two or three PBS stations in your market, you will probably end up with one. Religious broadcasters will take the money and move to OTT -- they will be able to hand out a lot of Rokus for what they get in the auction. 

Repacking and channel sharing will free up a lot of bandwidth. 

I spent the week in a place called Ebeemee Township. Lots of antennas all the way up. There are no cable companies. There is no FiOS. They do not get locals or HD nevermind UHD via satellite. Most cannot stream over their internet and cell reception is pretty spotty. There are a lot of DirecTV customers in places like Ebeemee Township who would love to get Vue OTA.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> I just don't see ATSC 3.0 working like that. I expect ATSC 3.0 to arrive as a Roku or Fire TV app streamed from a 'special' router provided as part of a Pay TV package. Something like Vue or Sling TV. Whatever local ATSC 3.0 content is available will come as a bonus.


That's an interesting take on what ATSC 3.0 will look like and not consistent with what I've read at industry sites like TVTechnology, Broadcasting & Cable, Light Reading, MultiChannel News or ATSC.org.

Is that your personal hunch about ATSC 3.0 (which is fine if it is) or does it reflect some info you've read online? I like to read that sort of stuff, so any links you might have are appreciated.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> That's an interesting take on what ATSC 3.0 will look like and not consistent with what I've read at industry sites like TVTechnology, Broadcasting & Cable, Light Reading, MultiChannel News or ATSC.org.
> 
> Is that your personal hunch about ATSC 3.0 (which is fine if it is) or does it reflect some info you've read online? I like to read that sort of stuff, so any links you might have are appreciated.


The stuff you are reading is from ATSC 3.0 stakeholders. They are promoting ATSC 3.0 -- hoping to win government, consumer, and broadcaster support for something that makes little sense at this time.

I posted speculation based on what I've read in the media and what I have experienced in 54 years as a consumer of broadcast services -- with a little common sense sprinkled on top.

This is what we know...

Broadcasters make a lot of money
Their market share is rising
New OTA products are arriving all the time
ATSC 3.0 products support pay-per-view/access control
ATSC 3.0 can be streamed inside the home

ATSC 3.0 promises consumers nothing that is not already available in a cable bundle. ATSC 3.0 is going to cost broadcasters a lot of money to implement. The feds are reluctant to fund ATSC 3.0 as part of repacking. It's going to be a long time before a critical mass of OTA consumers have ATSC 3.0 tuners.

So, a couple broadcasters per market set up ATSC 3.0 hardware, stream stuff not already available for free (premium movies, uhd, adult programming, etc.), and provide household hardware as part of a bundle or as a rental.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

wizwor said:


> The stuff you are reading is from ATSC 3.0 stakeholders. They are promoting ATSC 3.0 -- hoping to win government, consumer, and broadcaster support for something that makes little sense at this time.
> 
> I posted speculation based on what I've read in the media and what I have experienced in 54 years as a consumer of broadcast services -- with a little common sense sprinkled on top.
> 
> ...


The Government will pay for ATSC 3.0 for stations that move to VHF. ATSC 3.0 has a greater bandwidth which allows more sub channels. Mobile devices will be able to stream ATSC 3.0 without it counting against the data plan.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

shwru980r said:


> The Government will pay for ATSC 3.0 for stations that move to VHF. ATSC 3.0 has a greater bandwidth which allows more sub channels. Mobile devices will be able to stream ATSC 3.0 without it counting against the data plan.


Link please.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

wizwor said:


> Link please.


https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-14-1395A1.pdf

"The Spectrum Act establishes a $1.75 billion TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund (Fund) to be used for reimbursement of eligible relocation costs."

http://current.org/2016/05/atsc-spel...ic-television/

"Broadcasters would be able to invest in this new technology of the future, buying 3.0-compatible equipment for which they will be compensated during the FCCs channel repacking process."

FCC chairman Michael O'Rielly stated that broadcasters are the ones who have petitioned the FCC to rollout ATSC 3.0 on a market-by-market basis. Broadcasters want ATSC 3.0 because it would allow for interactivity, ultra high-definition, the advanced emergency alerts, more channels in the same bandwidth, mobile broadcast TV, and datacasting.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ne...-atsc-30-its-appropriately-complicated/156397

I think that being able to reach mobile devices will be a motivating factor for broadcasters, because they will be able to reach a younger audience who watch video on their mobile devices and ATSC 3.0 won't count against the mobile device data plan. Advertising is most effective on young people because they haven't developed a strong sense of brand loyalty.

ATSC 3.0 is linked to the transition from UHF to VHF, because the broadcaster will have to pay for new equipment to broadcast their signal on a new frequency and the FCC will pay for the transition to ATSC 3.0.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ne...atsc-30-tech-shouldnt-get-repack-funds/157664

JUN 28 2016
Washington
UPDATE: CTIA: ATSC 3.0 Tech Shouldn't Get Repack Funds

Wireless carriers have told the FCC it should not pay any extra for ATSC 3.0 equipment if that proves to be part of the TV station repack equation following the spectrum auction or change its timeline to accommodate a new transmission standard.
The major trade group for commercial broadcasters signaled they would not be asking for any extra money.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wizwor said:


> Link please.





wizwor said:


> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ne...atsc-30-tech-shouldnt-get-repack-funds/157664
> 
> JUN 28 2016
> Washington
> ...


Good luck, I have been through this discussion before and it appears the logic is that because the Government is providing money to move to a new frequency and that the station can choose to convert to ATSC 3.0 during the move that the Government is now paying stations to convert to ATSC 3.0. The fact that the Government payment has nothing to do with if the station converts to ATSC 3.0 or not and will be made if they don't convert to ATSC 3.0 seems to be irrelevant in some peoples minds.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

I know. During the ATSC 1.0 transition, you could not use the voucher towards a device which was not specifically a digital to analog tuner (live a DVR which was also a converter).


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

wizwor said:


> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ne...atsc-30-tech-shouldnt-get-repack-funds/157664
> 
> JUN 28 2016
> Washington
> ...


The repack only affects stations that remain on UHF, not stations that move to VHF. Stations that don't move to VHF aren't cooperating and aren't going to get much help from the government.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Isn't there an ATSC 3.0 thread where all of this was already discussed? This one is suppose to be about cable and the replacement for CableCARD


----------



## Time_Lord (Jun 4, 2012)

hey sometimes government intervention does lead to major improvements.  see United States v. AT&T in 1982 presided over by Judge Harold Greene.

He broke up AT&T into all the baby bells (the fact that they've started coming back together again is another issue), that led to the beginning of lower cost phone calls, high speed data, you being able to own your own phone plus a lot of other stuff.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

shwru980r said:


> The repack only affects stations that remain on UHF, not stations that move to VHF. Stations that don't move to VHF aren't cooperating and aren't going to get much help from the government.


link please.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Time_Lord said:


> hey sometimes government intervention does lead to major improvements. see United States v. AT&T in 1982 presided over by Judge Harold Greene.
> 
> He broke up AT&T into all the baby bells (the fact that they've started coming back together again is another issue), that led to the beginning of lower cost phone calls, high speed data, you being able to own your own phone plus a lot of other stuff.


 Older customers confused about picking a local and a long distance provider, phones becoming disposable pieces of crap. Local phone bills being jacked up on people. Tax money wasted on what turned out to be useless in the long run. Good old gov't intervention.


----------



## Time_Lord (Jun 4, 2012)

do you really think that had AT&T not been broken up we would have had all the innovation in in the telecomm industry? AT&T would have would have forced you to use their equipment for everything. Until the breakup if you wanted to use a modem you had to use an acustic coupler because you were not allowed to connect anything to the telephone network.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That's the problem with both cable and phone companies, they essentially have monopolies over the areas they service. In some cases the local government even passes laws to make it impossible for competition to come in, even if they're willing to pay for the expense of laying all the wire needed. (NV has some law on the books that prohibits municipalities from creating public networks)

Technology is opening up the market some but it's not quite there yet. Maybe someday we'll be able to get wireless internet at prices and speed similar to cable, but for now we're stuck with one or two choices in most areas. (in most areas the phone company can't compete with cable on speed)


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> That's the problem with both cable and phone companies, they essentially have monopolies over the areas they service. In some cases the local government even passes laws to make it impossible for competition to come in, even if they're willing to pay for the expense of laying all the wire needed. (NV has some law on the books that prohibits municipalities from creating public networks)
> 
> Technology is opening up the market some but it's not quite there yet. Maybe someday we'll be able to get wireless internet at prices and speed similar to cable, but for now we're stuck with one or two choices in most areas. (in most areas the phone company can't compete with cable on speed)


This is not true at all. Most people could replace their cable package with an antenna and a cell phone.

What you really mean is that there is no less expensive alternative to cable that meets my needs. That's capitalism not monopoly.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wizwor said:


> This is not true at all. Most people could replace their cable package with an antenna and a cell phone.
> 
> What you really mean is that there is no less expensive alternative to cable that meets my needs. That's capitalism not monopoly.


While I agree we can no longer call our cable & telephone companies true monopolies, it is also untrue to call the markets they are in open and competitive which is what consumers really want. That said I have 1 choice for a wired ISP which sounds pretty close to a monopoly to me.

Capitalism by it's nature tries to create closed and non-competitive markets with the ultimate goal of having a monopoly. Both of these markets would become less competitive and move towards becoming monopolies if the Government allowed it.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

atmuscarella said:


> While I agree we can no longer call our cable & telephone companies true monopolies, it is also untrue to call the markets they are in open and competitive which is what consumers really want. That said I have 1 choice for a wired ISP which sounds pretty close to a monopoly to me.


The only reason you have one choice for a wired ISP is that no one wants to compete with that provider. No doubt that the cable companies use practices like bundling to discourage market entry, but most people can choose not to use local cable services. I use an antenna and an alternate ISP while my sister in Ebeemee Township uses satellite and a cell phone.

If you are not satisfied with your choices, you can move. Where we live is one of the choices we make which determines what services we have access to. If you choose to live in Ebeemee Township, there is no cable, there are no ISPs, cellular service is sketchy, and satellite is SD. That's geography not capitalism.



atmuscarella said:


> Capitalism by it's nature tries to create closed and non-competitive markets with the ultimate goal of having a monopoly. Both of these markets would become less competitive and move towards becoming monopolies if the Government allowed it.


This is not true either. Capitalists try to create closed markets so they can increase price, but capitalism says that when such a market exists, when price increases enough, competitors will enter the market.

Broadcast television was a virtual monopoly in the 60s because the cost of competing was overwhelming AND because people were reluctant to pay for television. The cable companies figured out how to build infrastructure inexpensively enough AND created a product that was compelling enough that they overcame these barriers. When people became willing to pay enough for television, satellite became viable. Eventually, prices for pay tv increased to the point that people sought alternatives and OTA and OTT became viable.


----------



## thyname (Dec 27, 2010)

wizwor said:


> The only reason you have one choice for a wired ISP is that no one wants to compete with that provider. No doubt that the cable companies use practices like bundling to discourage market entry, but most people can choose not to use local cable services. I use an antenna and an alternate ISP while my sister in Ebeemee Township uses satellite and a cell phone.
> 
> If you are not satisfied with your choices, you can move. Where we live is one of the choices we make which determines what services we have access to. If you choose to live in Ebeemee Township, there is no cable, there are no ISPs, cellular service is sketchy, and satellite is SD. That's geography not capitalism.
> 
> ...


Excellent post!

Thank you.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wizwor said:


> The only reason you have one choice for a wired ISP is that no one wants to compete with that provider. No doubt that the cable companies use practices like bundling to discourage market entry, but most people can choose not to use local cable services. I use an antenna and an alternate ISP while my sister in Ebeemee Township uses satellite and a cell phone.
> 
> If you are not satisfied with your choices, you can move. Where we live is one of the choices we make which determines what services we have access to. If you choose to live in Ebeemee Township, there is no cable, there are no ISPs, cellular service is sketchy, and satellite is SD. That's geography not capitalism.


If a company/business has a monopoly or not has nothing to do with why they have the monopoly. A monopoly by definition is simple: the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. If a person has one option for an ISP or Pay TV provider than that provider has a monopoly, doesn't matter why there is only one provider.

The conversation of what we (Government) should require when it comes to utilities providing coverage to all areas is another conversation and had nothing to do with my comment. When it comes to Internet access and along with good telecommunication abilities it is becoming an essential utility especially for Rural Businesses. So if you like eating and believe having abundant reasonable cost food available is a good thing, I recommend you support having reasonable cost broadband available to everywhere.



wizwor said:


> This is not true either. Capitalists try to create closed markets so they can increase price, but capitalism says that when such a market exists, when price increases enough, competitors will enter the market.


Capitalism doesn't say anything, again it is a simple and definable term: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Open markets and competition are not requirements of capitalism. They are the requirements Governments impose on a capitalist economic system. If you would like to see how capitalism works without those Government impositions just take a look at how organized crime and gangs work. That is how capitalism works without Government regulation effectively the most brutal evil organization destroys all others by what ever means necessary. In order for capitalism to benefit the masses it is necessary to have Government impose a set of rules that keep markets open, while allowing for innovation and competition. Most all of our political debates are about what those rules should be.



wizwor said:


> Broadcast television was a virtual monopoly in the 60s because the cost of competing was overwhelming AND because people were reluctant to pay for television. The cable companies figured out how to build infrastructure inexpensively enough AND created a product that was compelling enough that they overcame these barriers. When people became willing to pay enough for television, satellite became viable. Eventually, prices for pay tv increased to the point that people sought alternatives and OTA and OTT became viable.


I don't know what this has to do with my comment you quoted but sounds good to me.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

wizwor said:


> This is not true at all. Most people could replace their cable package with an antenna and a cell phone.
> 
> What you really mean is that there is no less expensive alternative to cable that meets my needs. That's capitalism not monopoly.


Uh no that's not capitalism, that's an oligopoly market when you're tallking about the wired HSI access needed for a streaming replacement to cable/sat.

Telling people to move does not change the definition for people living in these markets.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Want better TV and Internet, move to Japan or the UK, and Vote for Trump so we can make TV great again.


----------

