FCC proposes an open/universal cable box -

combatentropy said:
How much is it per mile to lay cable? (Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?)



How much has the US government given to subsidize internet access? (Answer: billions)

Are US ISPs operating at an obscene margin? (Answer: Look at your own post. Something about "They should be embarrassed at how much money they make.")
What happened in Europe when they too had a similar lack of competition? (Answer: the same thing, see my citations above)
How much is internet access from the US company Google Fiber? (Answer: $0)
How much is gigabit internet access from Google Fiber? (Answer: $20 more than I pay AT&T for 15 mbps)
Is Google Fiber maybe then operating at a loss, held up by the larger Google advertising behemoth (Answer: as soon as Google gigabit internet was announced in a certain city, AT&T announced the same speed for the same price).
Click to expand...

We are 100% in agreement. The issue of high cost is that there is no competition. Not because of a cable box, but because there isn't a practical way for any new players to really compete. Only the likes of Google can afford to lay fiber to everyone's house (on a limited test market basis) to offer some level of competition. A long time ago, before fiber was practical, AT&T tried to compete directly with cable by putting in their own cable system. They tested this in Silicon Valley. It was a disaster. Why? People didn't want their yards dug up to lay coax. The cost to lay new cable in after a subdivision is established with mature landscaping.... Don't touch my bushes... is a real issue. I've been very curious about the Google initiatives, but I have not read up on how it is they have deployed the fiber. Verizon was able to do it because the east coast has a lot more neighborhoods with poles and high apartment densities. AT&T is stuck with underground burial and lawns.

Keep in mind that we can't really compare the Google initiative as a real offering. It's an experiment. I don't think they post financials on it, so who knows if they are charging fees that cover costs and make it a real business.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it would be great if this worked. But this has been tried before and failed. While our phones work pretty well with wireless, the technology that Starry is using requires a line-of-site antenna. It will be susceptible to rain-fade. They are going to use new technology to try to overcome these issues, but it won't be a piece of cake.

The real costs are in the content. So even if there is competition to deliver, the majority of the cost is the subscription fees for channel content. Just how much cheaper they can offer service is not clear. The alternative would be if this startup offered an ala-carte channel lineup.
 
Paul F said:
... The real costs are in the content. So even if there is competition to deliver, the majority of the cost is the subscription fees for channel content. Just how much cheaper they can offer service is not clear. The alternative would be if this startup offered an ala-carte channel lineup.
Click to expand...
The non-real-time and the OTA volume of content is substantial. For live sports currently on cable, subscription will be required. The rest will probably be available via separate bundles soon enough.
 
It seems odd to me that the concept of a "universal cable box" is being floated when the growing number of cord cutters are running away from cable boxes. People are not disgusted with the lack of competition or innovation, they are disgusted with the prices.
 
Well, I'd say people are not disgusted with prices; at least not disgusted enough to do anything about it. Until they stop subscribing, the price will continue to go up. The ESPN price I mentioned of $2.50/sub/month is quite stale. Apparently, it is much more than that today. Yet Comcast is rolling in dough. So they pile on fees far beyond their expenses. Their annual report would make any stockholder giddy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top