|reply to halfband |
Re: Who Killed the Open Set-Top-Box?
said by halfband:
But if the US had the canadian "buy a box" system we would just have $15 outlet mirror fees. You can't win.
Looks like someone is trying to get that system here:Former judge sues Cox for forcing subscribers to lease set-tops
Stanley Feldman asks U.S. District Court to make Cox disgorge profits from set-top business
By Steve Donohue, FierceCable - October 25, 2012
From the article:
The lawsuit, filed in a U.S. District Court in Tucson, alleges that Cox is violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by tying set-top rentals to pay TV subscriptions. In addition to asking the court to require Cox to give subscribers the option to buy set-tops instead of renting the boxes, it wants Cox to disgorge profits generated from renting set-tops.
Also, from Light Reading Cable today (»www.lightreading.com/document.as···d=226367
Cox Communications Inc. is under fire for charging set-top box rental fees to customers wanting TV services beyond the basic tier. Stanley Feldman, a former state Supreme Court judge, is asking a district court in Tucson to ban Cox from forcing customers to pay the monthly US$6.99 fee. He wants an option to buy the equipment from third parties. The case started as a national class-action lawsuit against Cox, but a federal judge in Oklahoma rejected it, ruling that customers can file individual complaints in their home states, reports the Arizona Daily Star. Cable has pursued the retail angle with tru2way, but the common middleware/headend platform failed to spur a retail market for cable set-tops. (See Tru2way: Epic Fail at Retail: »www.lightreading.com/document.as···d=202538 )
what does this mean for comcast, time warner, suddenlik,etc? Do they have to sell set tops as well?
|reply to mikedz4 |