# Their may be no more qam



## caddyroger (Mar 15, 2005)

The fcc may let the cables com scramble all the stations.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/477203-NCTA_to_FCC_Let_All_Digital_MSOs_Encrypt_Basic_Tier.php

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association has urged the Federal Communications Commission to allow cable operators that have gone all digital to encrypt their basic tier.

That came in comments Monday on the FCC's proposal to do just that. "Given the substantial public interest benefits and the lack of harms associated with encryption, NCTA endorses the Commission's tentative conclusions and urges it to act expeditiously in amending its rules," according to the cable organization.

It added that allowing basic encryption would largely eliminate theft of service, promote innovation and investment, and reduce polution and fuel consumption by reducing truck rolls to activate or deactivate service (NCTA said Monday that the benefits would outweigh the minimal extra watts consumed by new boxes).

Cable operators also argued that the competition has no similar ban on encryption. "When the encryption rule was adopted in 1994, cable was the dominant MVPD, and there were few competitors," said NCTA. "The situation is dramatically different today. DBS and telco IPTV providers -- each requiring set-top boxes for each of their subscribers -- serve approximately 40% of the marketplace with all-digital service on a fully encrypted basis. Likewise, online video distributors deliver video to customers on an encrypted basis. Netflix alone has 23.8 million subscribers, more than any MVPD. None of these video providers is barred from encrypting or otherwise protecting the content they provide to their customers."
As Multichannel News first reported back in October, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski proposed allowing all cable operators to encrypt digital basic channels, given that the TV industry is going all-digital and that the move would had consumer, environmental and theft-protection benefits.

The commission officially voted Oct. 13 to propose that change and put it out for comment. "We tentatively conclude that allowing cable operators to encrypt the basic service tier in all-digital systems will not substantially affect compatibility between cable service and consumer electronics equipment for most subscribers," the commission said. The FCC has already granted several waivers -- most prominently to Cablevision -- and more are in the hopper from cable operators.

The FCC conceded there was an issue with consumers with basic-only digital who accessed it without set-tops, or second or third sets without digital boxes that would now need new equipment to unscramble a signal. It proposed adopting the conditions it put on the waiver it gave Cablevision to encrypt its basic service in New York.

Those conditions include requiring cable operators to offer "current basic-only subscribers up to two set-top boxes or CableCARDs without charge for up to two years, (b) digital subscribers who have an additional television set currently receiving basic-only service one set-top box or CableCARD without charge for one year, and (c) current qualified low-income basic-only subscribers up to two set-top boxes or CableCARDs without charge for five years." But it also asked whether this was adequate of whether the Cablevision time frames are appropriate.

NCTA had some tweaks to the language of those conditions, but said it had not quarrel with their substance.

edited to correct link


----------



## CoxInPHX (Jan 14, 2011)

Bad link, missing .php

http://www.multichannel.com/article/477203-NCTA_to_FCC_Let_All_Digital_MSOs_Encrypt_Basic_Tier.php


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Outrageous.


----------



## caddyroger (Mar 15, 2005)

CoxInPHX said:


> Bad link, missing .php
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/477203-NCTA_to_FCC_Let_All_Digital_MSOs_Encrypt_Basic_Tier.php


Thank for the correction. I corrected it in my post.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

So this basically makes it so they are guaranteed to charge an "outlet fee" for every TV in your house. Another rate hike disguised as preventing theft.

Dan


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Ouch. This totally renders moot my "QAM Mapping Letter Writing Campaign" thread from like 4 years ago that was so wonderfully successful.

Curiously, how does encrypting basic service "reduce truck rolls" and "curb pollution"? Seems to me it would do the opposite.


----------



## billyjoebob99 (Jan 13, 2007)

smbaker said:


> Curiously, how does encrypting basic service "reduce truck rolls" and "curb pollution"? Seems to me it would do the opposite.


To turn on or off basic service now requires a tech to connect or disconnect the physical cable. Encryption allows them to turn on or off the device from the office.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

I wonder how much of their profits come from selling the signal and how much come from the stuff they do their best to force you to rent?

I'll bet the thought that some people watch television for free just by hooking a set of rabbit ears to a receiver has them sobbing into their pillows at night at the unfairness of it all.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> So this basically makes it so they are guaranteed to charge an "outlet fee" for every TV in your house. Another rate hike disguised as preventing theft.
> 
> Dan


That's the way I see it too, and not surprisingly the FCC says nothing about capping these fees for basic-only subs. So long to getting your local HDs in the clear on secondary sets unless you pay the toll.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

One word: Antenna.

Get an antenna.


----------



## HomieG (Feb 17, 2003)

There will likely still be QAM. There may not be *in-the-clear* QAM.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Strictly, equipment rental is a loss leader. Their profits are in the services. They have to rent equipment to be in control of it.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

billyjoebob99 said:


> To turn on or off basic service now requires a tech to connect or disconnect the physical cable. Encryption allows them to turn on or off the device from the office.


Yes, but they now have to distribute equipment to all these basic cable users, and the equipment needs to be collected when the account is terminated.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

classicsat said:


> Strictly, equipment rental is a loss leader. ...


A bit surprising.

Back when there were a lot of "cable ready" TVs and VCRs that only went up to channel 36, they had CNN on 27 but moved it up to 47 and left a lot of the channels below 36 empty, and I always assumed it was to force people to rent the cable box, which was not included in the price at the time.


----------



## jtso (Oct 2, 2009)

smbaker said:


> Yes, but they now have to distribute equipment to all these basic cable users, and the equipment needs to be collected when the account is terminated.


In my house, we have 5 TVs and only one cable box. For the 4 non-cable box TVs we are content with the analog tier of channels plus OTA on one TV and clear QAM for the others. If clear QAM were eliminated we would have to get additional cable boxes (at least 3). In the kitchen, because of space limitations and a WAF consideration, there is no place to put a cable box. It would be somewhat better if there was a "Bring Your Own Box" possibility (such as a retail TiVo Preview).


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

I don't see the problem. Theft of service IS a big concern, and I'm not sure why it's some 'right' to be able to plug in as many TVs as you want for free....


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> I don't see the problem. Theft of service IS a big concern, and I'm not sure why it's some 'right' to be able to plug in as many TVs as you want for free....


If I'm paying for 24/7 access to both CNN and MSNBC I should be able to access them simultaneously at no extra charge.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

I'll go one further, If I was paying for 24/7 access to CNN its is no business nor should there be an extra charge for me to choose to watch it in the Kitchen or the Bedroom or both. I PAID for the programming.

I really should sit this one out, I gave up on CATV as a media distibution means years ago.


----------



## jtso (Oct 2, 2009)

My cable company does allow customers to use splitters to serve different rooms in the house, and they provide clear QAM as required by law (until it is changed) and I pay the cable company to provide this service. So this is not for free - I'm taking full advantage of what is offered.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

classicsat said:


> Strictly, equipment rental is a loss leader. Their profits are in the services. They have to rent equipment to be in control of it.


Yeb Time Warner is running triple play adds again for $90 including a free DVR. Kind of hard for any third party STB/DVR supplier to compete with that.


----------



## sbourgeo (Nov 10, 2000)

Adam1115 said:


> I don't see the problem. Theft of service IS a big concern, and I'm not sure why it's some 'right' to be able to plug in as many TVs as you want for free....


It's a right because the FCC currently prohibits cable companies from scrambling signals on the basic tier of cable service to ensure that consumers with cable ready TVs can receive those channels without a set top device.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

The title of this thread is very misleading. QAM isn't going away. Encrypted QAM is still QAM.

And with the advent of SDV, QAM is becoming more and more useless. If you are in an area like me where almost 100% of the cable channels are SDV channels, there's very little use for unecrypted qam.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

classicsat said:


> Strictly, equipment rental is a loss leader. Their profits are in the services. They have to rent equipment to be in control of it.


But with this setup they can not only charge you for the box but also for an additional "outlet fee" for each TV you use, so it becomes a profit source.

The cable companies are going to slowly but surely turn themselves into ISPs with tactics like this. As more and more people get sick of paying hundreds of dollars to watch a handful of channels they're going to "cut the cord" and turn to streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. Then all they'll need from the cable company is an internet connection.

Dan


----------



## Aero 1 (Aug 8, 2007)

Raj said:


> One word: Antenna.
> 
> Get an antenna.


+1


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

unitron said:


> If I'm paying for 24/7 access to both CNN and MSNBC I should be able to access them simultaneously at no extra charge.





jcthorne said:


> I'll go one further, If I was paying for 24/7 access to CNN its is no business nor should there be an extra charge for me to choose to watch it in the Kitchen or the Bedroom or both. I PAID for the programming.


Why should you be able to? I pay for DirecTV, I guess I should be able to use hacked receivers on all of my other TVs?

You pay for access to their programming via terms and conditions set by the cable company.



jtso said:


> My cable company does allow customers to use splitters to serve different rooms in the house, and they provide clear QAM as required by law (until it is changed) and I pay the cable company to provide this service. So this is not for free - I'm taking full advantage of what is offered.


So they should always do whatever they've allowed in the past? There's nothing wrong with taking advantage of what is currently allowed, but I see no reason why the cable company has to let you get their programming on as many TVs as you want for no extra charge.



sbourgeo said:


> It's a right because the FCC currently prohibits cable companies from scrambling signals on the basic tier of cable service to ensure that consumers with cable ready TVs can receive those channels without a set top device.


It's also unfair to the cable companies. They have to experience a higher degree of theft to make it more convenient for you? Satellite doesn't have to do that...

And there's nothing stopping TV manufacturers from making cablecard TVs. They used to, but nobody wanted them.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Raj said:


> One word: Antenna.
> 
> Get an antenna.


Not a solution for everything. There are some channels that are in the "basic tier" that are not available OTA like Discovery, Comedy Central, A&E, USA and FX all of which have original programming that I watch.

Honestly this issue doesn't really effect me. I have all my cable devices (i.e. TiVos) in a single room and then distribute them throughout the house using various methods. However this setup was relatively complicated, and expensive, to accomplish so it's not really a practical solution for everyone.

Dan


----------



## JimG19 (Jun 30, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> The cable companies are going to slowly but surely turn themselves into ISPs with tactics like this. As more and more people get sick of paying hundreds of dollars to watch a handful of channels they're going to "cut the cord" and turn to streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. Then all they'll need from the cable company is an internet connection.
> 
> Dan


Agree 100%. However, I think we will then see cable companies jack up internet rates even more and enforce caps on usage. Probably have several tiers of plans with unlimited running around $150 a month or more.

Jim


----------



## RealityCheck (Feb 15, 2007)

classicsat said:


> Strictly, equipment rental is a loss leader. Their profits are in the services. They have to rent equipment to be in control of it.


That is not true for major MVPDs. Cablevision pays $150 for each SA/Cisco 4250HD box. In return, they receive $6.95 per set monthly in additional to their "additional outlet fee". Cablevision collects this fee in perpetuity for that set top box, and deducts its depreciating value from its tax statement. Set Top Boxes are generally amortized over 24 months. These boxes provide "over the top revenue" sources as well, which is the real reason MVPDs are bullish on their use.

Cablevision aggregates viewer data, and utilizes it to sell local ads to specific households (local in locale), plus uses these subbed box figures in selling interactive advertising services ("Optimum Autos" "Disney Cruise VoD"). This is impossible without set top box usage. There is also VoD and interactive PPV sales to figure in.

MVPDs could have utilized "addressable pole traps" or CableCARD to eliminate need for a "truck roll". There's no need to rent a set top box for this purpose. The Cellular Phone Industry uses SIM Cards to secure their network without need of handset rental. Needless to say, their model seems quite secure. We all know that the security argument is specious. CableCARD could function exactly as a SIM, but NCTA designed a device to comply with a mandate. End-user satisfaction wasn't the goal. Apple proved with the iPhone a third party device can exist autonomously on a network without carrier app approval.

I hope the FCC doesn't approve this without public commentary.


----------



## sbourgeo (Nov 10, 2000)

Adam1115 said:


> It's also unfair to the cable companies. They have to experience a higher degree of theft to make it more convenient for you?


Again, watching unscrambled basic cable on as many TVs as you want is not theft according to the FCC.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Not a solution for everything. There are some channels that are in the "basic tier" that are not available OTA like Discovery, Comedy Central, A&E, USA and FX all of which have original programming that I watch.
> 
> Honestly this issue doesn't really effect me. I have all my cable devices (i.e. TiVos) in a single room and then distribute them throughout the house using various methods. However this setup was relatively complicated, and expensive, to accomplish so it's not really a practical solution for everyone.
> 
> Dan


non of those other channels in basic are restricted from encryption. In fact many would be encrypted on systems now with unencrypted local broadcast channels.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

classicsat said:


> Strictly, equipment rental is a loss leader. Their profits are in the services. They have to rent equipment to be in control of it.





unitron said:


> A bit surprising.
> 
> Back when there were a lot of "cable ready" TVs and VCRs that only went up to channel 36, they had CNN on 27 but moved it up to 47 and left a lot of the channels below 36 empty, and I always assumed it was to force people to rent the cable box, which was not included in the price at the time.





Dan203 said:


> But with this setup they can not only charge you for the box but also for an additional "outlet fee" for each TV you use, so it becomes a profit source.
> ...
> 
> Dan


I'm too lazy at the moment to look it up but i am certain there are current regulations about what they may charge for equipment that is NEEDED for BASIC cable. I believe they are supposed break even on the equipment.

So renting stuff for broadcast channels alone is not ever likely to be a profitable business.

But interesting point about the outlet fees. I have comcast and in my particular location they only charge those fees for certain digital packages. I'm not sure if they charge the people with just the DTA's that or not- i dont think they do but i dont know. I also sort of recall a regulation about the ability to charge additional outlet fees and sort of recall that not allowed for basic tier- but again not certain. I also remember years ago (in Bush administration) FCC commissioners warned against charging "too much" for cablecards and addtional outlet fees and that going over a line would invite regulation. I even recall one commisioner mentioning that perhaps $2 a cablecard was potentionally the line. For the longest time no one charged more than 2 bucks a card. But now that seems to be OK so no idea if making more on addtional outlet fees would be ok or night either.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

sbourgeo said:


> Again, watching unscrambled basic cable on as many TVs as you want is not theft according to the FCC.


No, but me popping the filter off and watching it for free certainly is. This would eliminate that.


----------



## dimitri2000 (Sep 18, 2007)

Adam1115 said:


> I don't see the problem. Theft of service IS a big concern, and I'm not sure why it's some 'right' to be able to plug in as many TVs as you want for free....


My phone company doesn't care how many phones i plug in on my landline at home.....service is still paid for. And to extrapolate further, all those cable companies offering triple play bundles dont care how many phones you attach to the phone line for phone service, dont care how many computers or devices are connected to the router for internet service, but when it comes to TV service, they are trying to bill for every connected device. And it all comes into the house over the same wire. A little hypocritical don't you think? So, its all about milking the customer.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

dimitri2000 said:


> My phone company doesn't care how many phones i plug in on my landline at home.....service is still paid for. And to extrapolate further, all those cable companies offering triple play bundles dont care how many phones you attach to the phone line for phone service, dont care how many computers or devices are connected to the router for internet service, but when it comes to TV service, they are trying to bill for every connected device. And it all comes into the house over the same wire. A little hypocritical don't you think? So, its all about milking the customer.


So what? Your TV is not a telephone.

If you could walk down to the box and pop off a filter and get free phone service they would care. The cable company cares because people are stealing their service.


----------



## L David Matheny (Jan 29, 2011)

Raj said:


> One word: Antenna.
> 
> Get an antenna.


Exactly. Maybe this new round of screwing by the cable companies will provoke enough outrage in their longsuffering customers to inspire even more of them to cut the cord. This could be good for OTA viewership.


----------



## dimitri2000 (Sep 18, 2007)

Adam1115 said:


> So what? Your TV is not a telephone.
> 
> If you could walk down to the box and pop off a filter and get free phone service they would care. The cable company cares because people are stealing their service.


I dont buy the theft of service argument to force customers to rent boxes for each TV. Yes, Im sure there is theft, but to force every customer to pay for extra boxes in addition to extra outlet fees is a bit onerous. Not to mention having yet another piece of electronics burning up 45 watts continously for each box. In NY cablevision charges ~$11 for basic service. It would cost an additional $14 in stb fees if you had 2 tv's in effect paying more to rent stbs than the actual programming!


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

Considering the lack of theft now (everyone and their grandmother had descrambler in analog days) shouldn't we see price reduction of 30% or more?


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> No, but me popping the filter off and watching it for free certainly is. This would eliminate that.


What filter?

Are you talking about the people who only have cable so that they can get internet over it or only subscribe to the very basic (analog 2-13) service?

Because otherwise I'm not seeing how one goes about "theft of service" of cable these days unless you tap into your neighbor's line.

Can S3 and higher TiVos get digital cable channels without a cable card installed?


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

cannonz said:


> Considering the lack of theft now (everyone and their grandmother had descrambler in analog days) shouldn't we see price reduction of 30% or more?


Yeah, we TWC victims are really holding our breath waiting for that one.


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

unitron said:


> Yeah, we TWC victims are really holding our breath waiting for that one.


I assume You know I feel the same but they call themselves Brighthouse here. Is interesting it is never brought up though.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> I don't see the problem. Theft of service IS a big concern, and I'm not sure why it's some 'right' to be able to plug in as many TVs as you want for free....


From what I observed, during the analog days the cablecos tried per-outlet fees until they realized they were totally unenforceable. Once the encryption appeared, the per-outlet fees returned since they are now enforceable again.

You're right, it may be theft of service if you watch certain digital channels on more televisions than you pay outlet fees on (on my last bill I believe the outlet fee was described as a "_digital_ outlet fee"). However, it's the encryption that enables the per-outlet pricing scheme.



Dan203 said:


> Honestly this issue doesn't really effect me. I have all my cable devices (i.e. TiVos) in a single room and then distribute them throughout the house using various methods. However this setup was relatively complicated, and expensive, to accomplish so it's not really a practical solution for everyone.


You still have to pay an outlet fee per-Tivo, do you not? Last time I checked with comcast, it was considered one device = one outlet, regardless of the number of physical wall outlets involved.

Personally, I think the whole-home DVR with cheap slave units is the solution to all this.



unitron said:


> Because otherwise I'm not seeing how one goes about "theft of service" of cable these days unless you tap into your neighbor's line.


In my case there's a box out by the street where for every 4 houses where the individual cables hook to the main line. The cable guy showed me the innards of it. To "steal basic cable" now, I would need to enter that box and hook up my wire. Alternatively, I could run a wire to my neighbor's house and we could split the bill. In theory not all that difficult. With encryption, quite a useless endeavor as I would get an encrypted signal I cannot use.

There's also a not insignificant number of houses that the cableco simply forgot to disconnect. My father's place is like that. He has directv, but his comcast cable line is also live (and unused) and has been for years.



unitron said:


> Can S3 and higher TiVos get digital cable channels without a cable card installed?


Before getting Cablecards, I could get unencrypted cable on both my THDs. All of the channels in my package. The Tivo would not associate guide data with them though. It's what led me to start a QAM Mapping thread years ago. That's all changed. I haven't looked, but I bet everything but basic is encrypted.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

unitron said:


> A bit surprising.
> 
> Back when there were a lot of "cable ready" TVs and VCRs that only went up to channel 36, they had CNN on 27 but moved it up to 47 and left a lot of the channels below 36 empty, and I always assumed it was to force people to rent the cable box, which was not included in the price at the time.


Wait, what? When are you talking about? You're not talking about since the (CABLE) digital switchover, where many cable companies keep/kept a subset of channels on analog, even if they claim all digital? e.g. now I get up through I think 35 analog.

If you mean "back when" like 20+ years ago, the first TV I bought (cheap 20+ digital-as-in-buttons tuner) was cable ready, and it tuned up to 99..


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Do we use the same 
https://esupport.fcc.gov/ccmsforms/form2000.action?form_type=2000E
to provide feedback about this?


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

dimitri2000 said:


> I dont buy the theft of service argument to force customers to rent boxes for each TV. Yes, Im sure there is theft, but to force every customer to pay for extra boxes in addition to extra outlet fees is a bit onerous. Not to mention having yet another piece of electronics burning up 45 watts continously for each box. In NY cablevision charges ~$11 for basic service. It would cost an additional $14 in stb fees if you had 2 tv's in effect paying more to rent stbs than the actual programming!


I don't think the number of people who use clear QAM on additional TVs is all that high. When they converted from analog to digital, most people got a box.



unitron said:


> What filter?
> 
> Are you talking about the people who only have cable so that they can get internet over it or only subscribe to the very basic (analog 2-13) service?
> 
> ...


Yes, people with cable modems, people only paying for 2-13, people where the line is re-connected to their house (or never disconnected). People who live in apartments and can just hoke up their line.

The S3 can get digital cable without a cablecard but no guide info.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

smbaker said:


> ...............
> 
> You still have to pay an outlet fee per-Tivo, do you not? Last time I checked with comcast, it was considered one device = one outlet, regardless of the number of physical wall outlets involved.
> 
> ...


When I had Comcast I had eight cable cards with them with four TiVos. I paid one outlet fee and I split the cable internally on my own. I was able to only have them charge me one outlet fee since I split it myself instead of them doing it.


----------



## belunos (Sep 19, 2002)

I'm pretty sure the cable cos already pinch enough to cover the costs of any outright theft that's happening. And if this goes through, you can bet your arse they won't be lowering costs.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> I don't think the number of people who use clear QAM on additional TVs is all that high. When they converted from analog to digital, most people got a box.


I wonder if that QAM tuner is required by the FCC to be in the TV? I bet it is, and probably will continue to be, even if there ceases to be any clear-QAM.

EDIT - upon looking it up, it looks like ATSC is required, but not clear-QAM.

Nobody ever offered me a box. 

(not that I wanted one anyway)



aaronwt said:


> When I had Comcast I had eight cable cards with them with four TiVos. I paid one outlet fee and I split the cable internally on my own. I was able to only have them charge me one outlet fee since I split it myself instead of them doing it.


I spent over half an hour on the phone arguing with a Comcast rep once that a cable outlet hooked to a Tivo, which was then hooked to a TV (via HDMI) should be one digital outlet instead of two. She kept insisting that since I had a TV and a Tivo that I have two devices and therefore two outlets. Had to run to the manager every couple of minutes to "confirm" this until eventually she managed to properly communicate to him what I was saying.

"My TV isn't hooked to the cable outlet!"
"You watch TV on it right? so it needs an outlet!"

Round and round, for 30 minutes.

Comcast should really compensate customers for time spent arguing with them on the phone for issues where they are clearly wrong.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

rainwater said:


> The title of this thread is very misleading. QAM isn't going away. Encrypted QAM is still QAM.


Agreed, but if you've seen some of the OP's posts you realize that grammar clarity is not his strong suit.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

smbaker said:


> I spent over half an hour on the phone arguing with a Comcast rep once that a cable outlet hooked to a Tivo, which was then hooked to a TV (via HDMI) should be one digital outlet instead of two. She kept insisting that since I had a TV and a Tivo that I have two devices and therefore two outlets. Had to run to the manager every couple of minutes to "confirm" this until eventually she managed to properly communicate to him what I was saying.
> 
> "My TV isn't hooked to the cable outlet!"
> "You watch TV on it right? so it needs an outlet!"
> ...


Comcast did eventually come up with a product description that was specifically for a 2nd CableCARD in an S3 that was 1/2 the price of a single card, I know the Comcast threads should have it, but I've been FiOS for years and have forgotten the magic phrase.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

mattack said:


> Wait, what? When are you talking about? You're not talking about since the (CABLE) digital switchover, where many cable companies keep/kept a subset of channels on analog, even if they claim all digital? e.g. now I get up through I think 35 analog.
> 
> If you mean "back when" like 20+ years ago, the first TV I bought (cheap 20+ digital-as-in-buttons tuner) was cable ready, and it tuned up to 99..


I mean back when like in the late '70s to mid '80s.

My parents first VCR and my first one only went up to cable 36.

Of course back then the higher numbers worked on over the air (analog) UHF.

You being too young to remember/have experienced it does not make me wrong or mean that I mis-remember. Or be any less suspicious of the motives of the cable company.


----------



## RangerOne (Dec 30, 2006)

I guess I better get an antenna hooked up to my original HD Homerun.

This whole incident is just another reason for folks to cut the cord.


----------



## knuckles (Dec 21, 2002)

Raj said:


> One word: Antenna.
> 
> Get an antenna.


The reason cable was created in my area was because of the terrible terrain. One word solutions aren't possible for everyone.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

knuckles said:


> The reason cable was created in my area was because of the terrible terrain. One word solutions aren't possible for everyone.


Yes OTA sure varies allot, I get a pretty good line up, go 6 miles west and they can get 2X the channels go another 10 miles into a village in a valley and they get 0 channels no matter what they do. That community has had a "cable" system for ever it started as a system with an antenna on the hill just rebroadcasting OTA.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

smbaker said:


> I wonder if that QAM tuner is required by the FCC to be in the TV? I bet it is, and probably will continue to be, even if there ceases to be any clear-QAM.
> 
> EDIT - upon looking it up, it looks like ATSC is required, but not clear-QAM.


There are no currently meaningful tuner requirements. You can leave out any tuners and sell it as a monitor. The only requirement that _was_ important was that, IF you had an NTSC tuner, THEN you also needed an ATSC tuner. No one today would bother putting in only an NTSC tuner, since there's almost nothing to tune with it, so this mandate is no longer significant.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

unitron said:


> I mean back when like in the late '70s to mid '80s.
> 
> My parents first VCR and my first one only went up to cable 36.


Then that's not a "cable ready" tuner, as you first said.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Dan203 said:


> But with this setup they can not only charge you for the box but also for an additional "outlet fee" for each TV you use, so it becomes a profit source.
> 
> The cable companies are going to slowly but surely turn themselves into ISPs with tactics like this. As more and more people get sick of paying hundreds of dollars to watch a handful of channels they're going to "cut the cord" and turn to streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. Then all they'll need from the cable company is an internet connection.
> 
> Dan


Actually, first Charter, and now TWC have publically said they now consider themselves ISP's. Surely the other cable cos. will plea the same. The have seen their future and it is ISP primary and TV services as a side service. Every MVPD, while still profitable, is being slammed by the ever increasing programming costs they can't control by the even more greedy content owners/providers. Charlie Ergan at Dish is trying to build a new TV service via internet (like a traditional MVPD) but without those expensive sports services. Google is reported to be working on the same thing: a new MVPD service via internet. The MVPD's know that with programming rights going up and no choice but to pass that on to subscribers, the current MVPD model is so UNsustainable, programming costs are so high and to get MUCH higher they are actually trying to create a new model using the internet to abandon the first model.

But as for the cable cos. they stand to make MUCH more money as ISP's by no longer having to spend the money to offer premiere TV services and channels and, instead, dream up new tiers of ISP services and data caps and overcharges, as more and more content is coming to our TV's via the internet and the cable cos haven't a penny to pay for the rights of the content--WE WILL--they just charge us for using the pipe, and charging about the same for ISP as they do for the TV services today. So, we'll be paying pretty much the same rates, but they save on almost all the costs they incur today as MVPD's. That is MUCH more money IN and a whole lot less OUT for programming costs, TV service infrastructure and cost of acquiring subscribers and replacing for FREE or great discount all those DVR's with failing HDD's. Yes, they LOVE the new ISP business they will consider their primary business.

Thank goodness for the structure of the internet router and switches or we would be paying PER "outlet" or device requiring an IP address for internet services today and in the future. It is the ONLY thing that has kept internet affordable and allowed us all to connect an ever growing number of devices and has fostered innovation by allowing everything from thermostats, refrigerators, DVR's, game consoles, VoiP, etc. to access the advantages of the internet.

I hope we can all afford the internet in the future.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wmcbrine said:


> There are no currently meaningful tuner requirements. You can leave out any tuners and sell it as a monitor. The only requirement that _was_ important was that, IF you had an NTSC tuner, THEN you also needed an ATSC tuner. No one today would bother putting in only an NTSC tuner, since there's almost nothing to tune with it, so this mandate is no longer significant.


You are correct that they can sell you a "monitor" without any tuners, however if they call it a "TV" or "Television" it has to have an ATSC tuner.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

wmcbrine said:


> There are no currently meaningful tuner requirements. You can leave out any tuners and sell it as a monitor. The only requirement that _was_ important was that, IF you had an NTSC tuner, THEN you also needed an ATSC tuner. No one today would bother putting in only an NTSC tuner, since there's almost nothing to tune with it, so this mandate is no longer significant.


Most monitors don't have speakers. So then the customer has to buy an audio system.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> .........The cable companies are going to slowly but surely turn themselves into ISPs with tactics like this. As more and more people get sick of paying hundreds of dollars to watch a handful of channels they're going to "cut the cord" and turn to streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. Then all they'll need from the cable company is an internet connection.
> ......


I agree and look forward to the day -- I'm sick of Tuning Adapter problems.


JimG19 said:


> Agree 100%. However, I think we will then see cable companies jack up internet rates even more and enforce caps on usage. Probably have several tiers of plans with unlimited running around $150 a month or more.
> .....


I'm currently paying $114/mo. for Digital Cable with no premium channels, 10 Mbps internet, Tivo service (one box) and no phone (and the cable bill is a "bundle" that saves me about $20/mo). Assuming a reasonable interpretation of your term "unlimited", $150 doesn't sound that bad.

The non-FIOS cable systems have either (about) 700 MHz or 900 Mhz total bandwidth to play with. Both internet and cable tv are delivered using DOCSIS channels of 6 Mhz each. At most, your cable modem uses only 4 of these channels, i.e., they are using the remaining 100+ DOCSIS channels for TV. Just think of the internet bandwidth that could be offered if everything was just internet!

Regarding price competition and fear of high rates: Cable already has no competition in most regions for true high speed internet. Many areas have DSL which furnishes some competition for those willing to accept lower speeds. Whether 4G will provide competition, given it's high cost, is a question. So even now, with no true competition, the Cable cos. haven't run their prices through the roof. (I'm not sure why they haven't.)

Perhaps if we ever get to all-fiber into the home everywhere (like FIOS I guess) we can actually have real competition for high speed internet (?).


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

mattack said:


> Then that's not a "cable ready" tuner, as you first said.


Depends on how one defines "cable ready". Many cable companies didn't offer cable channels higher than that back when they first started offering channels above 13, and TVs, VCRs, and aftermarket cable boxes that only went up that high were all being marketed at the time as "cable ready".


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Series3Sub said:


> But as for the cable cos. they stand to make MUCH more money as ISP's by no longer having to spend the money to offer premiere TV services and channels and, instead, dream up new tiers of ISP services and data caps and overcharges, as more and more content is coming to our TV's via the internet and the cable cos haven't a penny to pay for the rights of the content--WE WILL--they just charge us for using the pipe, and charging about the same for ISP as they do for the TV services today. So, we'll be paying pretty much the same rates, but they save on almost all the costs they incur today as MVPD's. That is MUCH more money IN and a whole lot less OUT for programming costs, TV service infrastructure and cost of acquiring subscribers and replacing for FREE or great discount all those DVR's with failing HDD's. Yes, they LOVE the new ISP business they will consider their primary business.


My hope is that the internet will become so vital to daily life that ISPs will eventually be treated like a utility and have their prices regulated by the government to prevent the type of gouging you're talking about.

Dan


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> My hope is that the internet will become so vital to daily life that ISPs will eventually be treated like a utility and have their prices regulated by the government to prevent the type of gouging you're talking about.


Yes, they'll probably guarantee us reasonably priced bandwidth for sending and reading text emails, and for the "poor", they'll subsidize free high speed unlimited service.


----------



## Budget_HT (Jan 2, 2001)

smbaker said:


> Yes, they'll probably guarantee us reasonably priced bandwidth for sending and reading text emails, and for the "poor", they'll subsidize free high speed unlimited service.


I think the internet service cross subsidies are already happening in some parts of the country voluntarily, without regulation, perhaps to head off regulation. It has been compared to the telecom national universal service fund, which takes taxes/fees from paying subscribers to provide free or near-free service for "low-income" customers. Likewise now for wireless phone service.

Somehow I think you already knew this stuff.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> You are correct that they can sell you a "monitor" without any tuners, however if they call it a "TV" or "Television" it has to have an ATSC tuner.


Right... because it wouldn't _be_ a television if it didn't.

Are you arguing that monitors should now be allowed to be sold as "TV"s? Really?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wmcbrine said:


> Right... because it wouldn't _be_ a television if it didn't.
> 
> Are you arguing that monitors should now be allowed to be sold as "TV"s? Really?


Well my understanding is that monitors are actually not legally allowed to be sold as a TV/Television, for a device to legally be called a TV/Television it has to have an OTA tuner. All this means is that if a company is selling a 42 inch LCD without any OTA tuner they call it a 42 inch LCD monitor instead of a 42 inch LCD television. I think some companies also used the term "HDTV Ready" when they left out the tuners.

In the post I was commenting on you made several statements my response was directed at the first 2, your statement was:



wmcbrine said:


> There are no currently meaningful tuner requirements. You can leave out any tuners and sell it as a monitor. The only requirement that _was_ important was that, IF you had an NTSC tuner, THEN you also needed an ATSC tuner. No one today would bother putting in only an NTSC tuner, since there's almost nothing to tune with it, so this mandate is no longer significant.


I was agreeing with your second line "You can leave out any tuners and sell it as a monitor." While at the same time stating what I thought the actual requirement was which allows others to determine for themselves if they agree your first statement that was: "There are no currently meaningful tuner requirements."

The reason I thought it was worth mentioning at all was for the benefit of people who use the words TV or Television as a generic term to mean anything they view on a "TV/monitor", instead of the specific meaning used by the FCC/Gov. which is a device that we can receive and view what we refer to as OTA broadcast TV signals.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> Well my understanding is that monitors are actually not legally allowed to be sold as a TV/Television, for a device to legally be called a TV/Television it has to have an OTA tuner. All this means is that if a company is selling a 42 inch LCD without any OTA tuner they call it a 42 inch LCD monitor instead of a 42 inch LCD television. I think some companies also used the term "HDTV Ready" when they left out the tuners. ...


Back when the writing was on the wall for NTSC, VCRs and DVD/VCR combos were being marketed as "Tuner Free".


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> My hope is that the internet will become so vital to daily life that ISPs will eventually be treated like a utility and have their prices regulated by the government to prevent the type of gouging you're talking about.
> 
> Dan


Or better yet, impose common carrier status on ISPs so that all comers can use the lines at true wholesale rates (i.e., create competition where none exists today). That's what Europe and Asia have done to great success - they are far ahead of us now.

But the problem is that both the FCC and Congress have been bought and paid for by the cable and telcos, even though taxpayer money and protected monopoly status paid for the infrastructure (in large part) in the first place.

Ain't capitalism great? You get to have an HSI monopoly (or duopoly) and charge whatever you want while the gov't is asleep at the wheel. I just got my latest Comcast bill and internet is going up from $43.95 to $48.95 a month, with no speed or cap increases. And it actually costs them LESS to provide that same bandwidth than it did just a few years ago.

It's obvious by now that as cable subs decline, they'll just get their money from higher ISP or usage-based billing charges, and the FCC and Congress are going to look the other way when all that lobbyist money (or revolving door jobs) is coming to them.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

slowbiscuit said:


> ...
> 
> But the problem is that both the FCC and Congress have been bought and paid for by the cable and telcos...


Don't forget to include the NAB in that list.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

Raj said:


> One word: Antenna.
> 
> Get an antenna.


Not necessarily. Cable operators, among others, are after antennas too, and may get their way. See this link: www.thefutureoftv.org


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

dlfl said:


> The non-FIOS cable systems have either (about) 700 MHz or 900 Mhz total bandwidth to play with. Both internet and cable tv are delivered using DOCSIS channels of 6 Mhz each. At most, your cable modem uses only 4 of these channels, i.e., they are using the remaining 100+ DOCSIS channels for TV. Just think of the internet bandwidth that could be offered if everything was just internet!


Just a small correction/observation, not an argument:

Over six months ago, Cox Communications in my area, went to full 1GHz. They now stock their trucks with splitters & other items rated for 5-1002MHz, whereas they used to use 5-1000MHz. 900MHz splitters never worked well, even if you bought the very best ones. They have not, and claim they never will, implement SDV, or Tuning Adapters. Cox Las Vegas is more of a maverick franchise of the original Cox, so they get around a few regulations and innovate/change things as they please.

Also, currently, my SBG6580 Cable Modem/Gateway is locked onto 8 downstream channels (frequencies), the maximum number my CM/G supports, which are bonded together. I still only have 1 upstream channel/frequency, which would become 4, bonded together, if I upgraded to their highest Tier of service.

For the curious: With the Cox "Premier" Tier, I get download speeds to 80Mbps w/powerboost & up to 40Mbps sustained (usually 22-30Mbps during peak hours) and upload speeds of up to 10Mbps w/PowerBoost & up to 4Mbps sustained (usually 2-3Mbps during peak hours). There are 2 higher Tiers than what I have. I'm sure glad I went all-out and bought the DOCSIS 3.0 CM/G with the most channels supported!

As far as the TV service part goes, they still support analog channels 3-67, and 96-99. They recently made it so that ALL channels are digital if you use their STB/DVR and/or use their CableCard. Here and there, they have been moving channels like 2 & 4 to digital only. They have Clear QAM for local OTA only, and don't shuffle the frequencies around, but I can only use them on non-TiVo devices (the channel scan feature that I would have to use to add them adds ALL frequencies as if they are working channels/sub-channels, and it makes my TiVos slow to a crawl and crash irrecoverably, hard drive re-image required, within a month). This happens with My Tivo HD units and my Premieres as well. My TVs don't add every frequency and sub-channel, and/or the ones that do have an option to "remove unused/scrambled/encrypted channels". Why TiVo doesn't have such a feature, is beyond me. Lacking the guide data, I really don't mind not being able to use them. On the TVs the local OTA, available on Clear-QAM, channels are the only ones that have guide data available...

Regarding theft of service: Very easy here, pop the cover off the sidewalk box, which has no anti-tamper lock, crimp an end on the cable that they will have cut the end off of, then use the correct, or improvised, tool to remove a terminator from a tap port, and connect. Pretty much the same deal, just easier, to remove a "cable modem only" or "basic service only" filter/signal trap. However, Cox has trucks roaming all night that detect houses getting illegal service, either way, and on the second time they catch it, they will rip the entire line out from between your house and the sidewalk. The longest time anybody here can expect to get away with it is 1-2 months. I know all this because I know one of the Cox guys that works my area. I talked to him one late night when I saw him ripping out an illegal hookup for the second time. He said that two houses were going to get fined for the 2nd infraction, but I know the people, and they didn't even get any notices, or a fine. They know I could hook them back up, and always ask, but I ALWAYS decline. I'm more inclined to report them to Cox when they find somebody else who will hook them back up, and I see it being done. The damage I have seen done to Cox's taps/ports by people who are complete idiots, causes ingress & outgress on the network, which can degrade services for legitimate customers.


----------



## CoxInPHX (Jan 14, 2011)

nooneuknow said:


> Just a small correction/observation, not an argument:
> 
> Over six months ago, Cox Communications in my area, went to full 1GHz. They now stock their trucks with splitters & other items rated for 5-1002MHz, whereas they used to use 5-1000MHz. 900MHz splitters never worked well, even if you bought the very best ones. They have not, and claim they never will, implement SDV, or Tuning Adapters. Cox Las Vegas is more of a maverick franchise of the original Cox, so they get around a few regulations and innovate/change things as they please.


Did you know that Cox Las Vegas will be merged with Cox Arizona in the coming future. That could change things up. I would also bet that Cox Las Vegas will see SDV deployed before or after the markets combine.

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=212907


----------



## PGHammer (Dec 12, 2011)

caddyroger said:


> The fcc may let the cables com scramble all the stations.
> 
> The National Cable & Telecommunications Association has urged the Federal Communications Commission to allow cable operators that have gone all digital to encrypt their basic tier.
> 
> ...


The issue isn't the cable companies per se - the issue is broadcasters moving from must-carry (the old rule) to charging fees for their *valuable* (and normally carried OTA, at that) content to be carried by local cable companies (and telcos - VZ doesn't get off free, and neither do the satellite providers). It started with the independents and affiliates (LIN Broadcasting, Sinclair Broadcasting, etc.); the networks themselves and their O&Os only got in on the action after seeing how well their own affiliates were at their *extortion racket*. The NAB is silent because its their membership that's doing the extortion! By using the backdoor, it forces the NCTA and NAMST (National Association of Maximum Service Telecasters - the satellite and telco-TV providers, along with munis ineligible for NCTA membership, belong to this trade group) to be the *bad guy*, while the real *villains* - the NAB's membership - can play angel.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

PGHammer said:


> The issue isn't the cable companies per se - the issue is broadcasters moving from must-carry (the old rule) to charging fees for their *valuable* (and normally carried OTA, at that) content to be carried by local cable companies (and telcos - VZ doesn't get off free, and neither do the satellite providers). It started with the independents and affiliates (LIN Broadcasting, Sinclair Broadcasting, etc.); the networks themselves and their O&Os only got in on the action after seeing how well their own affiliates were at their *extortion racket*. The NAB is silent because its their membership that's doing the extortion! By using the backdoor, it forces the NCTA and NAMST (National Association of Maximum Service Telecasters - the satellite and telco-TV providers, along with munis ineligible for NCTA membership, belong to this trade group) to be the *bad guy*, while the real *villains* - the NAB's membership - can play angel.


The NAB are certainly no angels, the original version was "must carry, must pay".

That's right, in return for being allowed to hire the cable companies to act as our antenna to receive what we have a legal right to get for free because the broadcasters are using our airwaves, they wanted to get paid, by us, for having larger audiences to whom they could show commercials for which they charge more to advertisers.


----------



## PGHammer (Dec 12, 2011)

L David Matheny said:


> Exactly. Maybe this new round of screwing by the cable companies will provoke enough outrage in their longsuffering customers to inspire even more of them to cut the cord. This could be good for OTA viewership.


The cable companies aren't doing the screwing.

If anything, the cable companies (same with telco-TV, such as FIOS and AT&T U-verse, and the satellite providers) are actually the screwees.

Does anyone remember the original *must-carry* rule?

The original rule (mandated by the FCC, and applied equally to all CATV and MATV systems) specifically required that systems covered by the rulemaking (an FCC regulation) HAD to carry all locally broadcast channels available within the system's footprint by an average-priced antenna - contrariwise, the broadcaster was prohibited from charging the affected provider any fee.

The change in the rule was *not* at the request of the NCTA or any of its membership - the change in the rule was not even during the administration of Bush the Younger. This Proposed Change in Rulemaking actually dates back to the second term of the *Clinton Administration* (this gives you an idea of how long it takes things to filter through the labyrinth that is the national bureaucracy portion of the Federal Communications Commission), and originated with two multi-license broadcasting companies - LIN Broadcasting and Sinclair Broadcasting. These two companies led the charge to *monetize* their content (which they paid expensive *rights fees* for) by charging cable companies that retransmitted that content (often under the original *must-carry rule*). The NCTA (naturally) howled over this; it protested vigorously (and also resisted contract negotiations that have basically become a form of extortion - the broadcast companies - first these two, and then the broadcast networks and their O&Os - first with cable companies, and have since expanded to satellite providers and telco-TV providers) are using their leverage like old-fashioned, but legal, extortion - pay us what we want, or you don't get this content to retransmit. The membership of the NCTA is basically stuck.

Let's be honest - the NAB *hates* the cable companies (even the old MATV outfits that were their direct ancestors - Comcast itself began with an SMATV operation in Mississippi) - this has not changed with the NBC deal. (Why do you think that the NAB has *still* not recognized Brian Roberts - despite his being CEO of NBC Universal, as a member of the NAB, and is still looking for some way of ejecting NBC from the NAB altogether?) CBS and Disney (though both own both content and broadcast concerns) has stayed far away from owning any part of a cable company (despite, in the case of CBS, not exactly being profitable in their core broadcast operations - the reason CBS is profitable is their *advertising* businesses, led by billboard monster CBS Outdoor); they are, honestly, quite worried that the hate toward Comcast and NBC may well be turned on them!


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

PGHammer said:


> The cable companies aren't doing the screwing...


The cable companies and the NAB take turns screwing us, but we're always getting screwed.


----------



## PGHammer (Dec 12, 2011)

unitron said:


> The NAB are certainly no angels, the original version was "must carry, must pay".
> 
> That's right, in return for being allowed to hire the cable companies to act as our antenna to receive what we have a legal right to get for free because the broadcasters are using our airwaves, they wanted to get paid, by us, for having larger audiences to whom they could show commercials for which they charge more to advertisers.


That's exactly it.

While unaffected directly, I had nearly a worm's eye view of the last retransmission battle between Sinclair Broadcasting and Comcast in the Greater Baltimore SMSA (the Greater Washington SMSA, where I am located, and the Greater Baltimore SMSA are not just next to each other, but partially overlap - Comcast is the dominant, by far, cable provider in both areas). That nastiness led *directly* to the skirmish between Fox O&O WTTG and Comcast in the Greater Washington SMSA - Comcast, naturally, quickly settled. (Sinclair has a duopoly in Greater Baltimore with Fox and TheCW - FOX itself has a similar duopoly with MyTV in Greater Washington, DC.)


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

appleye1 said:


> Not necessarily. Cable operators, among others, are after antennas too, and may get their way. See this link: www.thefutureoftv.org


I went through about 6-7 pages on this link and all I got was how great OTA TV is, nothing about a threat to it, other than generalization. I'm sure that somewhere down in the links there was info on the threat, but I gave up looking for it.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jrm01 said:


> I went through about 6-7 pages on this link and all I got was how great OTA TV is, nothing about a threat to it, other than generalization. I'm sure that somewhere down in the links there was info on the threat, but I gave up looking for it.


Well it took me 5 seconds to figure out they were talking about the possibility of the GOV reallocating current OTA spectrum to some other use.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

jrm01 said:


> I went through about 6-7 pages on this link and all I got was how great OTA TV is, nothing about a threat to it, other than generalization. I'm sure that somewhere down in the links there was info on the threat, but I gave up looking for it.





atmuscarella said:


> Well it took me 5 seconds to figure out they were talking about the possibility of the GOV reallocating current OTA spectrum to some other use.


Yeah, I agree the site is too general right now. When it was first started there was a specific bill they were lobbying against and the site and particularly the home page was much more informative. The threat level has dropped a bit now and they have pulled most of that stuff.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Dan203 said:


> So this basically makes it so they are guaranteed to charge an "outlet fee" for every TV in your house. Another rate hike disguised as preventing theft.
> 
> Dan


I'm kind of torn on this issue. I think if the cable companies were allowed to do this, it'd help "innovation" (yeah, I know, I sound like a cable marketing guy) in that most companies would quickly, very quickly, speed up their conversion to all-digital systems. Overall I think that's a good thing. Analog is taking up a TON of useful space on cable and needs to die sooner rather than later. With SDV cable is catching up with satellite, but if they could dump analog that'd help. Maybe some system operators would even be forward-thinking enough to drop SD feeds for channels they have in HD, saving even more room.

I get the argument by a lot of people here and on other forums that use clear QAM, but in reality there's not a whole lot of customers this would affect. If the FCC puts in some reasonable rules (no equipment fees + outlet fees, or X number of free outlets, no equipment fees for basic tier, etc) this probably isn't that terrible of an idea.



smbaker said:


> Ouch. This totally renders moot my "QAM Mapping Letter Writing Campaign" thread from like 4 years ago that was so wonderfully successful.
> 
> Curiously, how does encrypting basic service "reduce truck rolls" and "curb pollution"? Seems to me it would do the opposite.


Reduces truck rolls because they can turn you on/off with an addressable receiver instead of having to come out and put a filter on your tap. If they get to do this, every house will be connected to the tap when built/first subscribed and no filters will ever be used again.



smbaker said:


> Yes, but they now have to distribute equipment to all these basic cable users, and the equipment needs to be collected when the account is terminated.


Most cable companies have local offices that allow drop off and pickup of equipment. Even rolling a truck at the initial installation, later changes/disconnects/reconnects would not require a cable company employee to come out.



dimitri2000 said:


> I dont buy the theft of service argument to force customers to rent boxes for each TV. Yes, Im sure there is theft, but to force every customer to pay for extra boxes in addition to extra outlet fees is a bit onerous. Not to mention having yet another piece of electronics burning up 45 watts continously for each box. In NY cablevision charges ~$11 for basic service. It would cost an additional $14 in stb fees if you had 2 tv's in effect paying more to rent stbs than the actual programming!


Maybe a compromise would be in exchange for permission to encrypt the entire system, the cable companies don't charge rent on the boxes. Or, if they do, they don't charge outlet fees. With this change they'll be basically the same as satellite companies. DirecTV doesn't charge rent on their boxes, and only charge 'outlet fees' (mirroring fees in their world) on the 2nd and any additional boxes (the first TV is included in the package cost)



unitron said:


> Depends on how one defines "cable ready". Many cable companies didn't offer cable channels higher than that back when they first started offering channels above 13, and TVs, VCRs, and aftermarket cable boxes that only went up that high were all being marketed at the time as "cable ready".


Cable ready usually just meant that it had a screw-on type connector, but I think eventually there were rules about what the tuner would support in order to be able to market it as cable-ready.



Dan203 said:


> My hope is that the internet will become so vital to daily life that ISPs will eventually be treated like a utility and have their prices regulated by the government to prevent the type of gouging you're talking about.
> 
> Dan


Well, since the trend is to deregulate even old utilities like the phone and electrical companies, don't hold your breath on this one.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Cable ready meant whatever some manufacturer's promo department wanted it to mean, but basically it was "has a tuner that can tune to some or all of the analog cable channels".

In the beginning a lot of them only went up to cable channel 36 or thereabouts, which is why I'm convinced that TWC's predecessors in this area moved CNN from 25 to 47, to encourage continued cable box and cable box remote rental.


----------



## tivohaydon (Mar 24, 2001)

JosephB said:


> ... in that most companies would quickly, very quickly, speed up their conversion to all-digital systems. Overall I think that's a good thing. Analog is taking up a TON of useful space on cable and needs to die sooner rather than later.


QAM is digital. I have no analog on my television service. There is no requirement for any analog to be on any cable provider's service lineup at all.

If a cable provider is still providing analog they've decided that it's in their best financial interest and have included how much "space" the channels are taking up in their analysis.



JosephB said:


> I get the argument by a lot of people here and on other forums that use clear QAM, but in reality there's not a whole lot of customers this would affect. If the FCC puts in some reasonable rules (no equipment fees + outlet fees, or X number of free outlets, no equipment fees for basic tier, etc) this probably isn't that terrible of an idea.


These rules have a long history of being temporary at best and the "concession" goes away and inevitably costs the consumer more money.


JosephB said:


> Reduces truck rolls because they can turn you on/off with an addressable receiver instead of having to come out and put a filter on your tap. If they get to do this, every house will be connected to the tap when built/first subscribed and no filters will ever be used again.


You seem to believe a "truck roll" is the only way of handling this and have bought into the premise that it must be stopped. There are several alternatives you're ignoring:

1. Do nothing. If the cost of a service call is really that high just stop billing the subscriber and leave them with a live feed.
2. Use an active distribution network. Cut the service to the residence off at the pole. Already possible in areas using SDV.
3. Continue making service calls.

All of those options sound more reasonable to me than what's been proposed:
4. Eliminate a service designed to be accessible to the least affluent members of our communities and replace it with a completely unregulated higher cost service.

Cable providers are doing truck rolls because they've determined that it costs them the least amount of money. There are alternatives but they're not interested in them. It's part of the cost of doing business. I don't see a reason we should always be minimizing the cost to large businesses at the consumer's expense.



JosephB said:


> Maybe a compromise would be in exchange for permission to encrypt the entire system, the cable companies don't charge rent on the boxes. Or, if they do, they don't charge outlet fees. With this change they'll be basically the same as satellite companies. DirecTV doesn't charge rent on their boxes, and only charge 'outlet fees' (mirroring fees in their world) on the 2nd and any additional boxes (the first TV is included in the package cost)


There you go. This is what it's really about. Reducing the number of truck rolls is not going to reduce the consumer's cable bill.

Cable providers want to start charging various fees in addition to the basic cost of the service. That's what "innovation" means in business these days. In areas with no growth in customer numbers extracting increasing amounts of money from existing customer's wallets is the name of the game.

I'd actually back this if it was required to give basic tier customers a device (a la, SDV premises equipment) that allowed a customer to use their existing clear QAM equipment at no cost to the customer. And, as you say, so few customers would be impacted it shouldn't hurt the cable provider's bottom line.

This is an easy technical solution that addresses cable provider's stated purpose, to reduce truck rolls. But that's not what the cable providers really want. They want more money. They want to make it difficult enough, and close enough in cost for basic subscribers to convert them into higher tiered packages.

Not in the public interest.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

tivohaydon said:


> QAM is digital. I have no analog on my television service. There is no requirement for any analog to be on any cable provider's service lineup at all.
> 
> If a cable provider is still providing analog they've decided that it's in their best financial interest and have included how much "space" the channels are taking up in their analysis.


Up until recently, though, they were required to keep analog around. It is true that analog is no longer required, and I suspect that it'll be gone pretty soon, regardless of the FCC's ruling here



> These rules have a long history of being temporary at best and the "concession" goes away and inevitably costs the consumer more money.


The timespan of the rules is a different issue. I would argue against rescinding any such restrictions should that be proposed in the future. The cable companies do have a compelling argument for why having no unencrypted channels would be beneficial to consumers. You & I happen to disagree about that, but they can make the argument and some people agree with them.



> You seem to believe a "truck roll" is the only way of handling this and have bought into the premise that it must be stopped. There are several alternatives you're ignoring:
> 
> 1. Do nothing. If the cost of a service call is really that high just stop billing the subscriber and leave them with a live feed.
> 2. Use an active distribution network. Cut the service to the residence off at the pole. Already possible in areas using SDV.
> ...


1. is completely unreasonable. what would stop someone from subscribing for a month and then canceling service? 
2. SDV requires equipment above and beyond clear QAM tuners, so if we're going to do that, why not allow them to encrypt, too? It would also require new taps throughout the entire HFC system, which would be more costly than any other alternative.
3. Fair enough, but they want to cut costs, which dovetails into #4: The companies are going to make their money, whatever their costs. If there's something reasonable that can be done to lower costs, then the price hikes may stop or even reverse. Their costs are paid by our costs. Lower their costs and you lower the cost on the consumer. Also, by asking the FCC for permission, aren't they explicitly being regulated? Just because it goes from clear QAM to encrypted QAM doesn't mean it magically becomes unregulated.

Finally, also in response to #4: clear QAM isn't meant for "the least affluent", that was analog. little old ladies don't have HDTV sets with clear QAM tuners or HTPCs with clear QAM tuners. If you have a digital TV set (which 9 times out of 10 will be HD) then you're not the target of programs designed for the poor, the elderly, and the slow-to-adopt-technology. The number of people with clear QAM tuners who are actually using them day to day has to be sub-1%. You can't expect those people to hold up progress, especially since many many systems have dumped analog which still has a 50+% penetration rate.



> Cable providers want to start charging various fees in addition to the basic cost of the service. That's what "innovation" means in business these days. In areas with no growth in customer numbers extracting increasing amounts of money from existing customer's wallets is the name of the game.
> 
> I'd actually back this if it was required to give basic tier customers a device (a la, SDV premises equipment) that allowed a customer to use their existing clear QAM equipment at no cost to the customer. And, as you say, so few customers would be impacted it shouldn't hurt the cable provider's bottom line.


I'm pretty sure in my post I said that they should provide free digital converters for basic cable subscribers (IE: anyone who would not have needed a converter at all under analog or clear QAM). If they wanted to charge above the first outlet, then that's a business decision. You have to pay per-outlet on satellite. There's a compromise here, you just have to be willing to get there. I don't think renting a digital set top box at $5 or less is really a money maker for them, since the vast majority of their subs now have digital boxes or DVRs anyway.

When you say a TA that allows a user to use their clear QAM equipment, how is that different than what they want to do? You wouldn't tune the QAM channels on your tuner, you'd tune them on the converter they give you. Sounds like you want to use something like MythTV or HD Home Run and this would break that. You're in the vast, vast, VAST minority here. There are ways to record those channels with Myth, etc. anyway, without QAM.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> I don't think the number of people who use clear QAM on additional TVs is all that high. When they converted from analog to digital, most people got a box.


I think that is completely untrue and exactly the opposite of what MOST people did. MOST people bought a TV so they could get the new digital channels without a box because they were told their old sets wouldn't work.


----------



## tivohaydon (Mar 24, 2001)

JosephB said:


> 1. is completely unreasonable. what would stop someone from subscribing for a month and then canceling service?


Well "signal theft is a crime". I remember those ads. And it's not as unreasonable as you seem to believe. I remember moving into a new location and plugging in my TV only to find an active signal before I called to get service.

The tap doesn't need to be disabled immediately. It can wait, days, weeks or months depending on service call priority, when a truck is in the area or not at all. It's about minimizing costs. A service call is probably worth a few months of service at least.

If a customer has a history of calling back the day after their tap was disabled that'd be easy to detect and they could be handled appropriately.



JosephB said:


> 2. SDV requires equipment above and beyond clear QAM tuners, so if we're going to do that, why not allow them to encrypt, too? It would also require new taps throughout the entire HFC system, which would be more costly than any other alternative.


Unfortunately I misunderstood a bit about how SDV works. I thought there was some CPE on the side of the house, etc similar to FIOS. The interactions are a lot further reaching and the effect is far less localized than I thought. Boo. Scratch that idea. 



JosephB said:


> 3. Fair enough, but they want to cut costs, which dovetails into #4: The companies are going to make their money, whatever their costs. If there's something reasonable that can be done to lower costs, then the price hikes may stop or even reverse. Their costs are paid by our costs. Lower their costs and you lower the cost on the consumer. Also, by asking the FCC for permission, aren't they explicitly being regulated? Just because it goes from clear QAM to encrypted QAM doesn't mean it magically becomes unregulated.


It is currently regulated so the providers must ask for permission / exemptions. If the result is the same as a provider's others services it effectively escapes the regulation that it's under.



JosephB said:


> Finally, also in response to #4: clear QAM isn't meant for "the least affluent", that was analog. little old ladies don't have HDTV sets with clear QAM tuners or HTPCs with clear QAM tuners. If you have a digital TV set (which 9 times out of 10 will be HD) then you're not the target of programs designed for the poor, the elderly, and the slow-to-adopt-technology. The number of people with clear QAM tuners who are actually using them day to day has to be sub-1%. You can't expect those people to hold up progress, especially since many many systems have dumped analog which still has a 50+% penetration rate.


Just because someone might have purchased a TV in the last 4-5 years doesn't mean they're not among the least affluent. The FCC ended analog broadcasts but that doesn't mean these people no longer exist.

Clear QAM for broadcast stations was definitely targeted towards replacing broadcast analog. No doubt about it.



JosephB said:


> ...
> 
> When you say a TA that allows a user to use their clear QAM equipment, how is that different than what they want to do? You wouldn't tune the QAM channels on your tuner, you'd tune them on the converter they give you. Sounds like you want to use something like MythTV or HD Home Run and this would break that. You're in the vast, vast, VAST minority here. There are ways to record those channels with Myth, etc. anyway, without QAM.


One of the reasons we're in the vast vast minority is due to the direction this change wants to take us. More reliance on your provider for every bit of service on their proprietary network. Imagine there was an open (government mandated?!) standard that was interoperable with many more consumer devices. We might be among and find our personal interests in line with the vast vast majority instead. It would turn the entire discussion around. But, as it is, because so much of cable service is unregulated, bringing your own has become exceptionally rare. It used to be the norm where customers only needed STBs for premium channels. Over time this has transitioned into multiple STB fees, DVR fees, outlet fees, etc.

Regarding the TA, I wasn't suggesting additional equipment. I was under the impression that a CPE box like FIOS uses was at a dwelling and that it could be used to select/allow/block programming. Addressable taps have been around for quite a while and offer a simple solution:

http://www.electroline.com/en/products/addressable/ultima/index.html

All in all, I think we agree on more than we disagree on. The question in my mind is how to enable greater and more diverse entertainment options within the home or at the very least, preserve access to the few options that remain.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

JosephB said:


> Finally, also in response to #4: clear QAM isn't meant for "the least affluent", that was analog. little old ladies don't have HDTV sets with clear QAM tuners or HTPCs with clear QAM tuners. If you have a digital TV set (which 9 times out of 10 will be HD) then you're not the target of programs designed for the poor, the elderly, and the slow-to-adopt-technology. The number of people with clear QAM tuners who are actually using them day to day has to be sub-1%. You can't expect those people to hold up progress, especially since many many systems have dumped analog which still has a 50+% penetration rate.


I disagree. The entire reason people migrated to HD sets was because they were told the old sets would no longer work. Most people I know bought the set and used it for clear QAM programming. TWC even advertised Free HD to those users since no box was required to view the stations and still isn't. The only people using boxes are those that subscribe to premium services, digital tiers, or who want VOD or pay per view. So, while the clear QAM channels may not have been specifically targeted at the poor, offering them for free in effect includes them as a customer that will now have to pay more to receive the channels that are encrypted.

Not to mention all the fancy do dads on TV's that require the cable to be hooked directly to the set for them to work. Picture in picture, etc...


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

I would still argue that users actively watching clear QAM channels instead of using a STB are sub 1%. Heck, a recent survey quoted at AVSForum showed that half the people with an HD set still weren't watching HD at all


----------

