Fact or fiction: What we know about the FCC’s proposal to unlock cable boxes

Fact or fiction: What we know about the FCC’s proposal to unlock cable boxes

(Goran Bogicevic/Shutterstock)


Save Story
Leer en español

Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes

This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.

SALT LAKE CITY — Saving money, increasing competition, and holding up innovation are all potential outcomes that have been debated since the Federal Communications Commission voted to pursue a proposal to “unlock the box” that delivers cable programming to homes across the country.

Proponents of the proposal advocate the end of a tightly controlled monopoly, while naysayers (primarily cable companies) warn that the move threatens innovation and could harm smaller networks and niche programming.

It's hard to know exactly what #UnlockTheBox means for both consumers and the cable industry. To help navigate these turbulent waters, here’s a breakdown of what we know for sure — and what we’re still waiting to learn — about this controversial proposal.

Fact: Cable companies currently have all the control

There’s no question about the current state of set-top boxes. For decades, consumers have rented boxes to unscramble cable channels and deliver subscription programming to their homes — no box, no cable. Cable companies charge a monthly rental fee for set-top boxes, and if a customer wants to tune in on more than one television, they have to rent multiple boxes.

The use of set-top boxes is non-negotiable, and the quality, production, and prices are completely controlled by the cable companies. Unlike modems and routers for internet service, set-top cable boxes aren’t available for individual purchase from independent retailers or manufacturers.

Fiction: Costs for set-top boxes have increased by 200 percent

The proposal’s main support has come from the release of figures that claim a nearly 200 percent increase in rental fees since 1994. That rate of inflation is drastically out of step with the costs of other technology, such as smartphones and computers. If true, this discrepancy makes the FCC’s proposal nearly impossible to resist.

Photo: Stigmatize/Shutterstock
Photo: Stigmatize/Shutterstock

However, there is some skepticism about the veracity of that claim. “Forbes” dug into the numbers and found that, upon closer inspection, the research was flawed. They determined that the rental fees being compared were not similar enough to draw the blanket conclusion. In effect, the 200 percent figure was a result of comparing apples to oranges. According to “Forbes,” the real increase may actually be flat or negative, which would seriously deflate the support for the FCC’s proposed changes.

Fact: Increased competition is a good thing

One thing that no one can deny is that more competition typically leads to better technology and lower prices. Giving consumers a choice drives innovation, quality, and cost control. As it stands, customers are at the mercy of their cable companies — forced to use the boxes that are provided and pay the fees determined by their providers.

The bottom line is that competition gives consumers choices. In fact, customers could choose to keep their current box and rental fees. The proposal doesn’t mandate that customers shop elsewhere for their set-top box — it simply seeks to offer an alternative if someone wants to shop around.

Fiction: Set-top boxes are already on their way out

Advocates for the cable companies have expressed concern that the proposal will move technology in the wrong direction. Their argument states that apps are the real future and set-top boxes are on their way out. By encouraging growth in this area, cable companies claim, the FCC is actually holding back innovation and limiting customer choices.

That fact is, alternatives to traditional cable subscriptions and set-top boxes already exist. Alternative television services like Roku and Apple TV, CableCARDS, and smart TVs are already using different means to deliver programming to customers. However, the one big drawback is that it’s not currently possible to use streaming services alongside traditional cable or satellite television.

When it comes to a standard cable subscription, customers are still using a set-top box. If apps are the wave of the future, why aren’t cable companies already developing and offering them as alternatives to set-top boxes? It seems likely that apps could replace the need for clunky devices at some point in the future, but we are not there yet.

Fiction: The FCC proposal is a done deal

Even though the proposal was approved to move forward, there are no final rulings yet. While it seems unlikely that the FCC will see a complete reversal in its position, it is a possibility. Until those final rulings come down and the details are released, everyone is simply guessing. Proof that this change would actually save customers more than $200 a year or that the proposal would squelch technological advances in other directions will be a long time coming.

Even if the proposal is adopted, cable companies would have two years to comply with the ruling to make their information streams available to third parties. Until that time, both sides of the issue are wise to quietly prepare for the potential changes, but all interested parties should resist holding their breath until the full rules and recommendations are delivered.


Sarah lives in Utah and writes about technology, wellness, and family. Find her on Twitter @sarahzpike.

Most recent Features stories

STAY IN THE KNOW

Get informative articles and interesting stories delivered to your inbox weekly. Subscribe to the KSL.com Trending 5.
By subscribing, you acknowledge and agree to KSL.com's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

KSL Weather Forecast