FCC approves new rules to help companies enter cable TV market

[edDV]

This is a big deal, allowing competition in local cable markets (e.g. the phone companies and internet service providers). Dems seem opposed. This is the opening shot in the Hollywood-broadcaster infrastructure vs. new media competition war. At this point the Dems are supporting status quo and Reps are for more competition from telco. Both unfortunately want more restrictions on personal recording.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/12/fcc-approves-new-rules-to-help.php
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061220/D8M4R44G0.html

[RLT69]

Could you be anymore of a Republican lacky. Try reading this:

FCC kills build-out requirements for telecoms' video services (updated)
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061220-8471.html

"In a 3-2 vote, the FCC has altered cable franchising laws in the U.S. to the advantage of AT&T and Verizon. 'The FCC order imposes a 90-day limit on local communities' franchising decisions, but, more importantly, does away with build-out requirements. Those requirements generally insist that companies offer service to all the residents in the town, rather than cherry-picking the profitable areas.' Good news for the telecoms, but bad for cities who want a say in the fiber deployments."

Now tell me this is good for the consumer. Before you post best get all you facts straight.

The FCC is telling local governments what they can and cannot do to "cable" franchises and they are creating an unlevel playing field. Why? Because cable companies are required to "build-out" but telecoms, by this ruling, do not. So the cable companies had to spend more money but the telecoms don't.

Since the telecoms are not required to build-out, not every area will be wired. Thus some people will have service and others will not.

Hardly great for competition.

[hech54]

How often is anyone allowed to switch cable television companies.....how often does anyone have a choice?
99% of cable television companies only serve a certain area of a city anyway and you can't get Company A in a part of town served by Company B.
It's idiotic and stupid to think that any of this will help the consumer....no matter what side of the aisle you are on.

[edDV]

RE: RLT69

I said this was the opening shot. Be sure you understand the various interests and don't fall for the NAB - Comcast - TimeWarner - Hollywood Studio's defending their turf in the name of protecting the poor and homeless. The current media oligopoly exists mostly by government restrictions to competition.

Likewise, notice the consolidation of power in the telephone companies (in particular the new AT&T and Verizon) to mount a challenge to this dominance. Slowly these companies are creating their own oligopoly and will soon start behaving like OPEC.

The third interest block is a computer industry that wants a piece of the action with Home Theater PC (HTPC) and home media networking as an extension of their business. They are being held at bay by the others with defensive media encryption and home network distribution restrictions. Be clear that DRM and "copy protection" strategies are more about protecting competitive turf than stopping home dubbing.

Missing in all of this is a consumer perspective or a "forth" party consumer power block. The consumer interest is being lost in this fight. You won't get it from either political party. They owe their loyalty to the media interests or telecom lobbys. The computer industry is next in line to be heard. Consumers are absent from the war. They are only the spoils of victory.

It is in this context that any competition to the status quo is good for the consumer including telecom and computer challenges to Hollywood and cable. Consumer education is important as this war heats up. If I had to rank the current good guys-bad guys it would be better to worst...

Consumers (silent and ignorant)
Computer HTPC guys (led by Microsoft and Intel pushing for home networking of media)*
Telecom guys (SBC and Verizon)
DBS guys (offering an alternative but not positioned well)
Cable guys (just doing what they are told to do)
Media guys (wielding extreme political power in their own defensive interest)

*Apple "negotiates" with the media guys but generally works in their interest.

[classfour]

I've actually been a beneficiary of Cable competitiion the past few years: The city council here has allowed an outside company to franchise - and they are providing digital cable, telephone, long distance, and internet (dial up to broadband) via fiber optic; making the local market very competitive. It's nice having choices. They've also approached the county commission about branching out, but are meeting some resistance.

[edDV]

I've actually been a beneficiary of Cable competitiion the past few years: The city council here has allowed an outside company to franchise - and they are providing digital cable, telephone, long distance, and internet (dial up to broadband) via fiber optic; making the local market very competitive. It's nice having choices. They've also approached the county commission about branching out, but are meeting some resistance.

In the old days, the local govts forced the monopoly telco/power to allow cable to use it's poles to distribute coax and forced power companies to provide power for cable amplifiers. The local gov't got ~5% cable franchise fee as a payoff for their efforts.

Today, telcos are replacing wires with fiber (needed for broadband internet) and don't know how to fill it. They need new uses (home video) or new customers (independent video providers). Cable companies have become uppie, defensive and political.

[Leoslocks]

Cable in Memphis (Time Warner now Comcast) has fiber optic in place and had dominated the broadband market in spite of inflated pricing and poor service. I can not get DSL because of the antique deteriorating telcom system.

If this ruling does not get over run by special interest congress, telcos will be able to compete with cable and i will have broadband sooner and possibly better service because of it.

[TBoneit]

There is competition in any town whether it has cable or not. It is called satellite TV.

If you don't believe me and have cable why do you think they run all those anti Sat TV Adverts?

With me those adverts had the opposite reaction to what they wanted. I started looking at DirecTV and Dishnetwork to see what they had that was making the Cable Company nervous. I' would have never looked at Satellite with the ads knocking it.

When I saw more channels for less money, well......

Bottom line any town with cable TV has at a minimum of 3 TV providers. Ever wonder why so many homeowners associations try to ban the dishes? Could it be a cosy little arrangement with the cable companies?

Are the days of satellite TV numbered? Hard to say. Many people fall for that triple play thing, forgetting that they most likely already have a cell phone and don't really need VOIP.

If I seem down on VOIP, I am... My customers all warn me away from Cablevisions phone offerings for example. I see them having to use a cell phone from the house because it is so unreliable.

For me it is a moot point as I don't even have long distance. I have a calling card that was a gift two Christmases ago that still has most of its minutes left. SO I have Sat TV (HD) and DSL 3Mb.

[edDV]

True there is DBS, (direct broadcast satellite) and it has a solid niche but is not for all. It is not always an alternative to cable especially in highrise cities and rentals. The financial community has declared cable the overall winner and cable pricing is becoming monopolistic since there often is no local competition.

For the HDTV customer like many here, cable is already bandwidth limited and it will be many years before they move to MPeg4 (more HD channels) without a serious competitive push from telcos or other IPTV providers. I think services will expand and prices will come down if there is free competition.

[painkiller]

EdDV Said:

and prices will come down if there is free competition.

That's a mighty big IF.

Although I agree with everything you've pointed out.

Here in Maryland, counties are varied in their management of the cable distributions. Some have had only one cable distributor and others have 2 to 3. The county I live in is nearly split in half with 2 cable distros covering their piece (with one short road where they co-mingle). Right now most of any competition is usually satellite.

Two counties are having fiber (Verizon) employed and switched on. Anne Arundel and Howard (I think) with FIOS starting to show up there.

I'd give anything to find out if the deployed fiber by Verizon will not be throttling back the bandwidth and thereby affecting HDTV programs as we have heard happens over DirecTV and others.

[TBoneit]

Even if it starts out full bandwidth, my guess is that as more HD signals start to be carried it will run out of bandwidth too and then they;ll stazrt cutting back.

edDV: Sat is already using MPEG4 on their HD channels, Both Dishnetwork and DirecTv. I beleiev Dishnetwork is using it on some national channels and DirecTv is using it on locals as I understand it. I also hear neither one is getting the bandwidth savings they were expecting. It appears thet the mPEG4 encoders need some refinement/fine tuning to get teh quality and save substantial bandwidth. And I also have heard rumors that some channels are MPEG2 with a MPEG4 header.

I'd like to see them get the bandwidth down and quality up so I could fit more on my DVRs hard drive.

[edDV]

Even if it starts out full bandwidth, my guess is that as more HD signals start to be carried it will run out of bandwidth too and then they;ll stazrt cutting back.

edDV: Sat is already using MPEG4 on their HD channels, Both Dishnetwork and DirecTv. I beleiev Dishnetwork is using it on some national channels and DirecTv is using it on locals as I understand it. I also hear neither one is getting the bandwidth savings they were expecting. It appears thet the mPEG4 encoders need some refinement/fine tuning to get teh quality and save substantial bandwidth. And I also have heard rumors that some channels are MPEG2 with a MPEG4 header.

I'd like to see them get the bandwidth down and quality up so I could fit more on my DVRs hard drive.

Yes DBS is working with MPeg4 now. They have both national ane local channels to uplink and compress. The ultimate "1000 channels" means that you get a core set of national channels and then each locality can tune it's 5-7 locals which are transcoded ATSC MPeg2 to MPeg4. Since DirectTV and Dish operate as closed systems, the companies can dynamically change compression, add or subtract channels and add satellites for more capacity.

Cable is limited by the infrastructure bandwith of their hardware. Newer systems have 750-1000 MHz divided into 6MHz RF channels that can each hold one analog or a mix of multiplexed SD and HD MPeg2 programs. Older 550 MHz and lower systems are severely limited for adding HD channels. Newer systems are good for 10-20 HD.

To add more HD, cable needs to eventually change to MPeg4 or other compression. This will require all new set top boxes for "digital" customers. Cable companies will delay this $$$$ next upgrade as long as they can. IPTV competition will help push that decision.

The telcos are wiring neighborhoods with mixed fiber, coax and copper wires that are competitive with cable in bandwidth. The telcos have the advantage that they can design for MPeg4 or other compression from scratch since they don't have the legacy infrastructure and installed set top box problems. They can also alter where servers are placed in the data flow to the home. Telco will have neighborhood or even single building or complex local servers to optimize data flow and user choice. The telco approach is most cost effective in dense urban environments where fiber is easier to deploy.

The local and national governments will be envolved in balancing the cable vs. telco interests. The politics line up as cable attempting to block the spread of telco at the local level while the telcos seek to limit the local diversity of regulation by setting national standards and placing limits on local power. All of this has been in play since the telecommunications act of 1996 freed cable to enter the telephone market and visa versa. What is missing is a consumer influence or even consumer awareness of what is going on.

If regulation is minimal, telco will have natural advantage in the dense urban areas, dbs in the suburban-remote areas and cable in the urban-suburban areas. Competition will be increased.

[TBoneit]

edDv are you sure about the 10 to 20 hd on newer cable systems? That sure sounds low?

I thought a HD OTA signal took 1 channels worth of bandwidth? Thus it seems that 1000 Mhz divided by 6 should allow many more than 20 HD depending on the mix of analog channels in there.

I've been looking at FIOS for data here at home and Cable at work. Why They just wired the mall for cable and no FIOS yet and we are so far that on a average day we get around 500K DSL, still better than dialup of course. Fios for the home because I don't really like my local cable company due to issues with getting the cable modem service fixed previously, Last they never did, after several weeks I self installed 3Mb DSL and to perdition with the cable company.

Anyway moving on it appears that FIOS & Satellite may have the capacity to deliver the most....

I should mention that I have Dishnetwork for years (HD DVR now) and had DirecTv in the past. The biggest problem I see for more bandwidth with satellite is that more satellites in the sky means the antenna has to look at more locations. They are already using dishes that look at 4 sat locations now. which has to add to the expense of a install as they need more LNBs and a fancier switch and a sturdier mount for the dish.

[edDV]

edDv are you sure about the 10 to 20 hd on newer cable systems? That sure sounds low?

I thought a HD OTA signal took 1 channels worth of bandwidth? Thus it seems that 1000 Mhz divided by 6 should allow many more than 20 HD depending on the mix of analog channels in there.

It is the legacy issue that dominantes for cable. On a typical system, about 70 channels are still used for analog. For a 550MHz older system (typical) that leaves 20 RF channels for internet, SD MPeg2 "digital", pay for view and HD service. 750 MHz (new installation) systems have ~ 53 RF channels for the above plus phone and the new "in-demand" type VOD services.

Cable companies can either compress more or start restricting analog channels. If allowed they would like to restrict "basic" analog service to around 20 channels and use the 50 freed channels for more HD and VOD. That is the mid term plan. Long term plan is to convert to MPeg4 or similar for even more "digital" channels.

Here, I'm on a new 750 MHz Comcast system that is in a mostly 550MHz region. We get 18 HD channels* but not all are on at once. FSN or CSNet Sports programming often replaces InHD 1 and 2.


* For those not familiar, of these 18, 6 are locals that are mostly upscaled SD with 2-8 hours of HD each day, 10 are national cable channels that vary in HD vs upscaled content and about 4 premium movie channels that are mostly HD.

[MJA]

It's a bad investment to install FIOS in poor areas.I think DSL and dailup is enough for them

[edDV]

It's a bad investment to install FIOS in poor areas.I think DSL and dailup is enough for them

The service will be demanded by the med-higher incomes. Efforts to restrict deployment works mainly to the benefit of the cable companies that want to retain those high value customers.

Telco needs an alternate low income product to take up the slack as cable drops analogs down to 20.

[dvdguy4]

It's a bad investment to install FIOS in poor areas.I think DSL and dailup is enough for them

Thats being alittle discriminating isnt it? Dont get me wrong, I believe the poor can help themselves just as much others in society. Its just called being lazy. My state just allowed Verizon permission to start offering their cable service after years of attempts . Cox had ruled R.I. but we will see if they lower the prices of their services to compete.

[oldandinthe way]

Verizon FIOS just received approval in my town. We now have three cable carriers. Although we do not know the details of the
Verizon offerings yet, it appears that there will not be a heck of a lot of difference in the bills from any of the three.

The reason, the programming providers are forcing the cable companies to include certain channels in all offerings. 40% of the programming costs by cable providers are sports channels. Although some progressive carriers which to make them an optional tier, they cannot due to the nature of the contracts.

Ala carte would serve competition far better. Although the Reps on the FCC have made a few stabs that way, neither party is serious about creating a consumer friendly cable enviornment.

Write your congressman. Tell them you do not want to pay for any more cable channels than you actually want to watch.