Advertisements A decade, at best. Because coming up with a standard is practically impossible - too many interests pulling it apart. You'll have the big guys - Comcast, Spectrum, Verizon and AT&T wanting the standard to be strict - so newcomers are locked out. But the newcomers want the standard to be lax - because they can innovate and disrupt (something the big guys obviously do not want). So a standard for the big guys can allow stuff like TiVo in, but the little guys (Think PS Vue, YouTube TV, etc) don't want to be forced into that box because maybe they can do things better (for varying degrees of "better" - perhaps they can add a feature TiVo lacks, to "I just don't want to work with TiVo and want my subscribers to use my DVR"). It's a state where government has to have a light touch - you don't want to regulate out all innovation, and by some means, the previous FCC administration paved the way for alternate delivery of services. After all - they could've come down hard to apps, but that could've stifled IP only providers from providing TV services and left everyone with only the big guys. So it's a plus that way - more alternative TV services means more user choice and more competition. But it's also a negative in that the big guys can see this big open unregulated space and move in. And it's almost impossible to carve out legislation that allows the former but regulates the latter (in the interest of fair play, after all). It's why most laws and rules are reactionary - Net Neutrality laws came into effect because the big guys were intentionally doing things that would stifle innovation. So they innovated and we got zero-rating, and more rules about that. Because that's how in general the rules get made - something bad happens, you write a rule to prevent it (it's why they often say a lot of rules are written in blood - someone had to die first) And seeing how the current rules give the big guys a huge advantage with their resources, the current FCC (who's "not in the pocket of Verizon") is unlikely to change the rules since it benefits the big guys more. You want a light regulatory touch at first, to not stifle potential innovation. Only coming down hard later on when you find it abused and going against innovation. But by that time, it's often too late and the only thing you can do is make sure it doesn't happen again.