Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

#31

Post by forgottenpass »

gumby wrote: post #24
bogomipz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not understanding your comment. A QAM tuner provides the modulating/decoding of the RF signal over coax. If they are moving away from this then fine but why does that design have "inherent assumptions" that "they own and control the network end-points that provide the video to the display device."? So they can continue to charge people $10 a month in perpetuity? That's about the only reason for that assumption. I…

> A QAM tuner provides the modulating/decoding of the RF signal over coax. If they are moving away from this then fine but why does that design have "inherent assumptions" that "they own and control the network end-points that provide the video to the display device."? The old QAM systems broadcast metadata (i.e. channel info) on one channel -- if you wanted an update just have your hardware keep watching until it pa…

Comcast's network is, I believe, an IPv6 system with a bunch of terminals and a set of servers at the core like some big enterprise network.

If my cable tech was correct, the cable box is such a thin client that every button press on the remote is processed remotely rather than on the cable box.

Considering a packet can circumnavigate the planet faster than their goddamn cableboxes will register a button press, I tend to believe it.

Re: Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

#32

Post by rhino369 »

eridius wrote: post #26
pyrale wrote: post #23

I wonder what the tech crowd would say if government was to order Apple to release windows- and android-compatible OSes, or if it was to rewrite Google's Youtube API terms of use at its convenience. You guys seem to have a pretty heavy dislike to your cable providers, which is OK, but I wonder how you would react to similar requests towards tech companies.

Cable providers are monopolies. In most markets, customers have literally zero choice as to what provider to use. This means that they need to accept a fair amount of government regulation, because there are no market pressures to act as corrective forces without government regulation. Meanwhile, the tech companies you listed are not monopolies (and when Microsoft did engage in monopolistic behavior, they were found…

>Cable providers are monopolies.

Cable video isn't anymore. There is typically one hardware cable company, two national satellite companies, two online streaming cable provides (SlingTv and PS-Vue), and many times a IPTV providers using telecom lines (Verizon or AT&T).

I have a hell of a lot more choice in video tv than I do for say web search engines. Should google and bing be forced to provide searches over an API?

Re: Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

#33

Post by __david__ »

nickff wrote: post #12
rhino369 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comcast already supports cablecard. They have to by law. The FCC proposed regulations go further than cable card.

Cablecard has been eliminated as a requirement by "Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization" (STELAR). It was eliminated because it had failed to increase competition in the set top box market, while increasing cost and energy consumption.

Well that's sad. The day my TiVo stops working is the day I cut the cord.

Re: Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

#34

Post by drzaiusapelord »

korethr wrote: post #11

I can understand Comcast's point. They're moving away from their QAM-based system, to an IP-based one, and one of the inherent assumptions of the design of the latter is that they own and control the network end-points that provide the video to the display device. Building a nation-wide multi-channel video distribution network is no small feat, and takes some non-trivial engineering work. Then along comes the FCC, an…

>Large complex systems don't just magically change overnight because of a governmental decree

This a million times. Its scary how people applaud draconian or at least, short sighted, legislation and regulations as long as those those policies are used against the "bad guys." They don't realize how much power this gives government and how easily government can victimize business, kill jobs, and hurt the economy over the whims of a couple regulators.

I'm no Comcast fan, in fact I'm sure I hate them, but expecting them to just be able to magically implement this stuff overnight is a little much. Have you seen tech surveys or interviews with congressmen, fcc types, and bureaucrats? They seem to have a CSI view of technology which is scary to me. I don't think they truly understand what they're asking for in some/many cases. They just follow the political winds and know what to say and do to advance their careers in the government.

Let's remember the failure of the cablecard. This was a big FCC decree. No one uses it. There's just so much choice between providers, satellite, streaming, etc that these things just never caught on. All these card readers and the back-end implementation were done for what exactly?

That said, when regulations are absolutely need they should be done. Are these needed? Lets assume so. How much is the government paying for all the extra cost these regulations will give to Comcast? Nothing? I can't imagine the government coming into my place of business and tossing out a decree like this. It would surely bankrupt us. Comcast will just pass the cost increase to the consumer just like it did with the cable card. Maybe we shouldn't be applauding all regulations without question anymore, even when they're used against our "enemies."

Re: Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

#35

Post by pyrale »

eridius wrote: post #26
pyrale wrote: post #23

I wonder what the tech crowd would say if government was to order Apple to release windows- and android-compatible OSes, or if it was to rewrite Google's Youtube API terms of use at its convenience. You guys seem to have a pretty heavy dislike to your cable providers, which is OK, but I wonder how you would react to similar requests towards tech companies.

Cable providers are monopolies. In most markets, customers have literally zero choice as to what provider to use. This means that they need to accept a fair amount of government regulation, because there are no market pressures to act as corrective forces without government regulation. Meanwhile, the tech companies you listed are not monopolies (and when Microsoft did engage in monopolistic behavior, they were found…

Let's not lie to ourselves. Google has as close as it gets to having a monopoly. Monopolies are everywhere in our industry. For the last 5 years, the key questions to get funding were policed versions of: "can you build a monopoly" and "if we give you money, what will be your dumping strategy". And that behaviour is exemplified by e.g. the transportation market conquest by Uber.

Imo, Microsoft's antitrust is not something that would happen again, because politicians now care about international power rather than domestic balance, aswell as the fact tech companies now invest significantly in lobbying.

Re: Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

#36

Post by korethr »

bogomipz wrote: post #20
korethr wrote: post #11

I can understand Comcast's point. They're moving away from their QAM-based system, to an IP-based one, and one of the inherent assumptions of the design of the latter is that they own and control the network end-points that provide the video to the display device. Building a nation-wide multi-channel video distribution network is no small feat, and takes some non-trivial engineering work. Then along comes the FCC, an…

I'm not understanding your comment. A QAM tuner provides the modulating/decoding of the RF signal over coax. If they are moving away from this then fine but why does that design have "inherent assumptions" that "they own and control the network end-points that provide the video to the display device."? So they can continue to charge people $10 a month in perpetuity? That's about the only reason for that assumption. I…

That there are assumptions that they own and control the network end points is betrayed by the comment that you don't find credible. I agree that the comment is poorly worded, but to me, it indicates that the set-top boxes they're renting out are more complex than just than something that naively decodes whatever video codec stream(s) is/are thrown at it.

I think it's a reasonable assumption that the set-top boxes that Comcast provides are loaded with at least some proprietary Comcast code that takes care of the various functions the TV box provides (scheduling/channel guide, on-demand, authorization, DRM-handling etc). I think it's also a reasonable assumption that Comcast's video distribution network (and related systems, like billing) are also built with the assumption that the endpoints will have Comcast's code running on them. It could well be that the set-top boxes for their new system are naive MPEG decoders running completely stock OEM firmware, but until presented with evidence of such, I think the former is more likely.

Re: Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

#37

Post by iaw »

galdosdi wrote: post #17

Actually, I'm willing to believe that a large cable monopoly's IT department is so incompetent and poorly run, that implementing this successfully is not likely for them. That's not a valid excuse though. A landlord ordered legally to fix a broken heater cannot avoid their duty by complaining "But I'm so BAD at working with heaters! They're confusing!"

I know someone who worked on the team to develop one of the 'next-gen' Comcast DVR units. The company is exactly what you'd expect but they apparently did have quite the competent engineering team. Not talking about IT here but the people that actually build the hardware and firmware for their proprietary boxes.

That being said it is absolutely not in Comcast's financial interests to adhere to the FCC regs on this and I also suspect that Comcast isn't fully lying when it says the FCC regs are hard to comply with.

Post reply on HN