# Cablevision granted waiver; can encrypt basic in one area



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The findings of the FCC:


> As of November 16, 2009 ... more than 99 percent of Cablevisions customers in New York City already have either a set-top box or a CableCARD.


So the FCC is saying here that it is reasonable to consider 99% such an overwhelming portion of the whole, that the potentially-negative impact of the change on the remaining 1% is insufficient to constitute a reason to preclude the waiver. They are also implying that the potentially-negative impact of the change on subscribers who have one STB or CableCARD, but perhaps have other outlets in use without STB or CableCARD, is insufficient to constitute a reason to preclude the waiver. This makes it clear that the FCC acknowledges the difference between a first outlet and additional outlets, and essentially places regulatory obligations onto suppliers principally on the first outlet.



> In conjunction with Cablevisions transition to all-digital, Cablevision is voluntarily offering (a) 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. In an effort to mitigate any harm to consumers that might result from encryption of the basic service tier, Cablevision has committed in addition to provide to its current basic-only subscribers with clear-QAM devices up to two set-top boxes or CableCARDs without charge for up to ten years. Cablevision has further agreed at the time of encryption not to charge connection fees for professional installation of those devices for basic-only subscribers. These offers are limited to current subscribers, upon request, and only so long as the customer remains at the current address and maintains his or her current level of service.


Here the FCC is making clear that mitigation of the change can be quite limited, yet still be considered sufficient. There is no allusion here that the change will not adversely affect some customers, nor any allusion that mitigation associated with such adverse affects would be permanent.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-34A1.txt


----------



## dylanemcgregor (Jan 31, 2003)

That's too bad. I'm moving into a Cablevision neighborhood and had planned to subscribe to basic since it specifically seemed you wouldn't need a cable box. Oh well, I've been doing OK with IPTV for the last couple of years won't be that hard to keep that going...it might even be possible for me to get OTA at the new place which will make cable even less essential.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

If they do it once, they will do it again. Cable cards or nothing.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

So, in short, customers who currently use a digital receiver without CableCARDs (a 3rd party recorder or a TV, essentially) are the only ones who will be affected by this?


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Bicker--I didn't read the entire decision. It sounds like Cablevision will be allowed to encrypt broadcast stations. Is there something buried in the report that suggests otherwise?


MickeS--This request was made prsuant to Cablevision converting to 100% digital. The result of this decision will affect adversly affect any customer using an analog tuner. It will affect anyone using a clear QAM tuner (in a computer).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lew said:


> Bicker--I didn't read the entire decision. It sounds like Cablevision will be allowed to encrypt broadcast stations. Is there something buried in the report that suggests otherwise?


That is exactly what the waiver allows -- it is really the whole point of the waiver.



lew said:


> MickeS--This request was made prsuant to Cablevision converting to 100% digital. The result of this decision will affect adversly affect any customer using an analog tuner.


The regulations already on the books, prior to this, already allowed that. I know, because two of our providers here in Burlington have already done it. Rather, the "result of this decision" is really just about encryption.



lew said:


> It will affect anyone using a clear QAM tuner (in a computer).


Definitely.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Start getting those antennas ready.


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

Now that the waiver is granted, what would make sense is to see how many existing customers "suddenly need" DTA or cable boxes for their TVs. That would confirm whether the 99&#37; number they quote is actually true or not. (Needless to say, I don't believe it... and they don't provide their source of that information.)

Of course, something tells me they won't collect this data... and no one will ask for it anyway. Who needs follow-through and accountability anyway?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

You misread the order.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Outrageous.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

wmcbrine said:


> Outrageous.


Why so? In urban NYC, do you realize how many cable drops cannot be disconnected, and persons in those dwellings are received 'free' broadcast basic?

From what I've read, if you currently subscribe to Broadcast Basic Only:
You will get up to 2 cable-card or STBs free for 2 years.

If you subscribe to a digital cable package with an additional analog outlet, you will get:
One additional cable-card or STB free for 1 year.

If you are a qualified low-income subscriber to only Broadcast Basic, you will get up to two cable-cards or STBs free for FIVE years.

If you subscribe to Broadcast Basic ONLY, and have a device with a Clear QAM tuner (i.e. - HDTV or Tivo), they will give you up to 2 cable cards or 2 STBs free for TEN years.

Seems as if 99.44 percent of the people who will get screwed are those who aren't paying for the service.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lew said:


> It will affect anyone using a clear QAM tuner (in a computer).


that is kind of the whole point. You have devices that can map the clear QAM to guide data for the actual channel and you effectively had the cable company supply free HD service for a basic tier price as enforced by law. 
The waiver seems like valid reasoning to me in order to reverse that mistake in the law. Let those that want in unencumbered go OTA instead.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

lew said:


> MickeS--This request was made prsuant to Cablevision converting to 100% digital. The result of this decision will affect adversly affect any customer using an analog tuner. It will affect anyone using a clear QAM tuner (in a computer).


But 100% digital is already allowed everywhere. Like you say, it seems to affect anyone using a "clear QAM tuner". Which, basically, is close to nobody.

I know we on the board here were hoping for TiVo to create a way to do manual (or automatic) channel mapping of QAM channels, but TiVo obviously have shown no interest in spending time and effort on that.

I'd say that estimating that 1% of users use clear QAM directly into computers and TVs and are affected here is probably an overstatement. I don't LIKE this, but in terms of the effect on users, this is probably barely noticable.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> that is kind of the whole point. You have devices that can map the clear QAM to guide data for the actual channel and you effectively had the cable company supply free HD service for a basic tier price as enforced by law.
> The waiver seems like valid reasoning to me in order to reverse that mistake in the law. Let those that want in unencumbered go OTA instead.


The only difference that I can see is that they need to get a CableCARD now (which obviously right now is a problem in much of the affected electronics, except for TiVo, Moxi and a few more). Unless Cablevision prohibits them from getting that without signing up for a "digital tier" of some kind?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> that is kind of the whole point. You have devices that can map the clear QAM to guide data for the actual channel and you effectively had the cable company supply free HD service for a basic tier price as enforced by law.
> The waiver seems like valid reasoning to me in order to reverse that mistake in the law. Let those that want in unencumbered go OTA instead.


While I loved that the cable companies were not allowed to encrypt the basic channels (I got the unencrypted HD like that for a short while myself), it does seem a bit unfair to force them to do so. I wouldn't use the word "mistake in the law", as I can see some valid reasoning for it. But I can also see why cable companies believe they shouldn't have to do it.

Since "basic" service here now costs $23/month, I'd hardly call that "free HD" though!


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> The waiver seems like valid reasoning to me in order to reverse that mistake in the law. Let those that want in unencumbered go OTA instead.


What was the mistake? Do you mean getting over-the-air HD channels for just the price of basic cable? That wasn't a mistake.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> The only difference that I can see is that they need to get a CableCARD now (which obviously right now is a problem in much of the affected electronics, except for TiVo, Moxi and a few more). Unless Cablevision prohibits them from getting that without signing up for a "digital tier" of some kind?


That would not be permitted, given the circumstances.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

The Moxi does allow clear QAM remapping though..


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Brainiac 5 said:


> What was the mistake? Do you mean getting over-the-air HD channels for just the price of basic cable? That wasn't a mistake.


Currently the cable companies have no control over how many outlets a user might have because of the QAM tuners in TVs and other devices.
A cable subscriber can essentially pay for 1 outlet, and later split the incoming cable and feed as many TVs in the house they want.
The cable companies want to treat each TV as an outlet and this encryption waiver allows them to do that.
So, you want cable on 5 TVs? You have to pay for 5 outlets.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

...which doesn't make it a mistake. Cable companies _want_ per-outlet pricing, certainly. That doesn't mean they're entitled to it. I share lew's bafflement at ZeoTiVo's comment.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> Cable companies _want_ per-outlet pricing, certainly. That doesn't mean they're entitled to it.


You've got it totally wrong.

At the start, before written laws are applied, suppliers are entitled *to offer*, and the purchasers are entitled *to accept or decline*. That's the first and most basic principle of commerce. So yes, cable companies are entitled to per-outlet pricing, because the laws don't (and IMHO shouldn't) prohibit it.

However, let's put aside, for a minute, even the most basic principle of commerce. Per-outlet pricing recognizes that people *derive additional value* from being able to use the service in multiple rooms in a home, and people who want more value should pay more for that additional value, instead of allowing the effect of value-averaging essentially force the lowest-level users to effectively subsidize the excessive use by heavy users. So even putting aside the most basic principle of commerce, and instead solely as a matter of fairness to lighter users, per-outlet pricing is something that cable companies absolutely are entitled to.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

wmcbrine said:


> ...which doesn't make it a mistake. Cable companies _want_ per-outlet pricing, certainly. That doesn't mean they're entitled to it. I share lew's bafflement at ZeoTiVo's comment.


I agree with you on that, our franchise agreement specifically does not allow these fees. I think cable will price themselves out of business in the next 5 years.


----------



## headroll (Jan 20, 2003)

I have Cablevision BASIC ONLY service on Long Island. I pay approx 20/month for stations 02-21. A change like this would suck!

NYC is not too far away from me ......


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

bicker said:


> However, let's put aside, for a minute, even the most basic principle of commerce. Per-outlet pricing recognizes that people *derive additional value* from being able to use the service in multiple rooms in a home, and people who want more value should pay more for that additional value, instead of allowing the effect of value-averaging essentially force the lowest-level users to effectively subsidize the excessive use by heavy users. So even putting aside the most basic principle of commerce, and instead solely as a matter of fairness to lighter users, per-outlet pricing is something that cable companies absolutely are entitled to.


I get value out of having water faucets in both my kitchen and bathroom, but the ciy doesn't charge a per-outlet fee for that. I pay the phone company for dial tone at the network interface, the phone network inside my house used to connect to it is my business.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> I think cable will price themselves out of business in the next 5 years.


We have five competitors here in Burlington. Our legacy cable company was the *last *one *not* charging something for every outlet, beyond limited basic. Indeed, even now that they are, the math is such that for many additional outlets, the cable company is still less expensive than a couple of the competitors.

This is all actually really easy... Ask yourself: Why are we even discussing this? Why do people care if they charge per outlet? Obviously, it is because (1) people like paying less rather than paying more, *and* (2) people derive a significant amount of *value* from additional outlets, and would rather have additional outlets than not have them. Reiterating what I said before, deriving additional value is the firmest foundation for paying more.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

vman41 said:


> I get value out of having water faucets in both my kitchen and bathroom, but the ciy doesn't charge a per-outlet fee for that. I pay the phone company for dial tone at the network interface, the phone network inside my house used to connect to it is my business.


The city charges a usage fee, which is volume of water consumed. One could argue that two outlets correspond to more television consumed.

Ma Bell used to charge per phone installed in the home. They used to measure the current consumed by your home when a call was received. If the current exceed your 'allotment', you'd get a nasty phone call / letter in the mail, demanding disconnect or payment. The way around this of course was to cut the power cord to the bell....


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> So yes, cable companies are entitled to per-outlet pricing, because the laws don't (and IMHO shouldn't) prohibit it.


Actually, for basic cable, the law only allows them to recoup the actual cost to them of the additional outlets. For analog cable, that was typically nothing (except the cost of installing the outlets); it would be the same for clear QAM. With this waiver, they'll be able to charge a fee for the cable card and the cost of supporting it.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> I agree with you on that, our franchise agreement specifically does not allow these fees. I think cable will price themselves out of business in the next 5 years.


I don't know if it will be in the next five years, but I think you're right that they'll price themselves out of business. Cable rates have been going up faster than inflation for a LONG time now; that can only go on so long before people decide it's just unaffordable.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

wmcbrine said:


> ...which doesn't make it a mistake. Cable companies _want_ per-outlet pricing, certainly. That doesn't mean they're entitled to it. I share lew's bafflement at ZeoTiVo's comment.


So much for cable companies being able to tout free multiple outlets in your home in their marketing campaigns. That was always one of things I noticed when the cable ads discussing the downside of sat played.

On the same note, this is going backwards. People are used to being able to do what they want with a signal once it enters their home. I suspect that once the actual impact of this decision hits home with those affected changes will be made.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> We have five competitors here in Burlington. Our legacy cable company was the *last *one *not* charging something for every outlet, beyond limited basic. Indeed, even now that they are, the math is such that for many additional outlets, the cable company is still less expensive than a couple of the competitors.
> 
> This is all actually really easy... Ask yourself: Why are we even discussing this? Why do people care if they charge per outlet? Obviously, it is because (1) people like paying less rather than paying more, *and* (2) people derive a significant amount of *value* from additional outlets, and would rather have additional outlets than not have them. Reiterating what I said before, deriving additional value is the firmest foundation for paying more.


The reality is that many people faced with having to buy additional equipment or pay more for the same service they were getting yesterday will balk and decide to not get the new service at all. Others who have limited budgets or fixed incomes will have to do without in some area of their life to continue getting the same service. Where's the added value? Oh yeah, the value is in continuing to get service. Once again, Hobson's choice.


----------



## 84lion (Jan 23, 2009)

dstoffa said:


> Ma Bell used to charge per phone installed in the home. They used to measure the current consumed by your home when a call was received. If the current exceed your 'allotment', you'd get a nasty phone call / letter in the mail, demanding disconnect or payment. The way around this of course was to cut the power cord to the bell....


I remember when Ma Bell only allowed their own phones and you had to pay a per month fee to rent. When that ended and you could buy your own phone, I never remember any specified limit or "allotment" on the number of phones based on current draw. It must have required a lot of phones to exceed the "allotment," given that most homes have phone outlets in almost every room. Of course, later generations of phones probably used far less current so more phones would be required to exceed the "allotment."

To me the best way for the consumer to maximize value in the Cablevision case is to have only the number of tuners required in the household and then deliver that signal throughout the house via internal cabling. In other words, rather than having a cable box at each "outlet," simply have one cable box in a central location that feeds TVs in each room. We do this with our Tivos.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

wmcbrine said:


> ...which doesn't make it a mistake. Cable companies _want_ per-outlet pricing, certainly. That doesn't mean they're entitled to it. I share lew's bafflement at ZeoTiVo's comment.


The glitch in the law is that people were getting basic cable and using clear QAM tuners and manual mapping to get a lot more channels in digital and some in HD. The cable companies could deal with that by encrypting anything they felt was value add enough that people would pay more to get it.
The law though was forcing the cable company to serve as a defacto OTA antenna and with far better reception. With the advent of devices like PC, MOXI and HdHomerun device, consumers were finding it easier and easier to make really good use of this extra stuff from cable and simply not pay for it.
So if the FCC is going to force cable companies to open up their network to 3rd parties it seems fair to balance that with allowing the cable company to charge for any value they provide and plug up the ways people just got it for free.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Actually, for basic cable, the law only allows them to recoup the actual cost to them of the additional outlets.


I would have to see the specific paragraph you're thinking of to believe you about that. The whole "basic cable" thing is a matter of necessity, and additional outlets are not a necessity. I do not believe that there are any regulations along the lines you're implying.

However, a quick citation, on your part, to the applicable regulation should clear that up.



Brainiac 5 said:


> For analog cable, that was typically nothing (except the cost of installing the outlets); it would be the same for clear QAM.


I know of no such correlation outlined in regulations, nor implied by the regulations. I'm really curious, now, to what you're referring.



Brainiac 5 said:


> With this waiver, they'll be able to charge a fee for the cable card and the cost of supporting it.


Yes, very true.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Cable rates have been going up faster than inflation for a LONG time now; that can only go on so long before people decide it's just unaffordable.


The whole science of market research is about monitoring the marketplace watching indicators that predict when pricing is exceeding what the market is willing to bear -- and not one bit prior to that. Underpricing the market is as irresponsible as overpricing the market.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> So much for cable companies being able to tout free multiple outlets in your home in their marketing campaigns.


Absolutely. That's really been such an incredibly weak selling point that I cannot remember the last time I remember seeing our local cable company try to make a point about that.

Today's purchaser of subscription television services, it seems, only cares about number of HD channels. 



Stormspace said:


> On the same note, this is going backwards. People are used to being able to do what they want with a signal once it enters their home. I suspect that once the actual impact of this decision hits home with those affected changes will be made.


Very unlikely. One of the biggest movements in the marketplace, here in my area, is from the local cable company to FiOS, and they already make you pay for a box on every outlet that you want to receive cable networks. RCN also requires that. (And arguably, the same applies with DBS suppliers.)



Stormspace said:


> The reality is that many people faced with having to buy additional equipment or pay more for the same service they were getting yesterday will balk and decide to not get the new service at all.


Obviously, that is not the case. See above.



Stormspace said:


> Others who have limited budgets or fixed incomes will have to do without in some area of their life to continue getting the same service.


Because practically everything you post is inaccurate, I thought it was really critical that I point out something you posted that was correct. This is one such statement.



Stormspace said:


> Where's the added value?


If there was no added value from getting service on more than one outlet, no one would care, one bit, that they're charging for service on more than one outlet.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> The whole science of market research is about monitoring the marketplace watching indicators that predict when pricing is exceeding what the market is willing to bear -- and not one bit prior to that. Underpricing the market is as irresponsible as overpricing the market.


So why is cable overpricing the market ?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

They're not.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> So much for cable companies being able to tout free multiple outlets in your home in their marketing campaigns. That was always one of things I noticed when the cable ads discussing the downside of sat played.
> 
> On the same note, this is going backwards. People are used to being able to do what they want with a signal once it enters their home. I suspect that once the actual impact of this decision hits home with those affected changes will be made.


I agree. If anything, this just makes satellite more attractive for many, as one obstacle for that was the part about having to have a receiver on every TV. If cable is doing the same, one of the main selling points for cable is gone.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> They're not.


Great answer, can i use the same answer , regarding cables. adopting of cable card. Cable have never fully supported cable card. There i just just said it!


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> So if the FCC is going to force cable companies to open up their network to 3rd parties it seems fair to balance that with allowing the cable company to charge for any value they provide and plug up the ways *people just got it for free*.


Once again: no, they didn't get it for free. I pay $23 for basic cable - it's the lowest cost I can pay and still receive cable service. That's far from free. I get the service I pay for, and that includes unencrypted digital local channels.

What they want to do is charge MORE for this. Which is fine, because there is probably money to be made on it (and like bicker points out, if there was no value in it for the customers, it wouldn't be a big deal). But don't pretend that currently people get it "for free". Nobody does, as far as I know.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> Great answer, can i use the same answer , regarding cables. adopting of cable card. Cable have never fully supported cable card. There i just just said it!


The difference is that I'm correct, and you're not.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

MickeS said:


> I pay $23 for basic cable - it's the lowest cost I can pay and still receive cable service. That's far from free. I get the service I pay for, and that includes unencrypted digital local channels.


If you're splitting your cable and using it on more than one TV, those extra TVs are getting content for free.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> I would have to see the specific paragraph you're thinking of to believe you about that.


I believe the regulation that relates to this is 47 C.F.R. 76.923, which states:



> (h) Additional connection charges. The costs of installation and monthly use of additional connections shall be recovered as charges associated with the installation and equipment cost categories, and at rate levels determined by the actual cost methodology presented in the foregoing paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) of this section. An operator may recover additional programming costs and the costs of signal boosters on the customers premises, if any, associated with the additional connection as a separate monthly unbundled charge for additional connections.


Here also is a FAQ put out by the FCC that says:



> Q: Can the cable company charge for additional outlets?
> 
> A: Operators may charge you a monthly fee to recover the cost of the wiring and parts installed and the estimated cost to maintain the outlet. This monthly fee generally will be quite low.
> 
> ...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

steve614 said:


> If you're splitting your cable and using it on more than one TV, those extra TVs are getting content for free.


It's really important to highlight that... Typically, when someone says that you're getting something "for free" it's a ruse: You're really paying for it -- in reality, it is "included" in the price you're already paying. It is not "free". In this case, Steve is absolutely accurate in saying "free". In the scenario outlined, the service being enjoyed is not "included". It is indeed "free".


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

steve614 said:


> If you're splitting your cable and using it on more than one TV, those extra TVs are getting content for free.


Of course they're not. They get it because that's what I pay for. The cable company even used that very argument in ads here (and elsewhere too, apparently) when comparing cable to satellite.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I believe the regulation that relates to this is 47 C.F.R. 76.923, which states:


Thanks for the reference. It is really hard to keep the entire Code of Federal Regulations in my head! You're absolutely correct: The price charged for additional outlets [for the lowest tier of service only (of course)], is indeed limited to cost of service.

Thanks for the citation.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> Of course they're not. They get it because that's what I pay for.


Nope. Check the terms and conditions of service. You are mistaken.



MickeS said:


> The cable company even used that very argument in ads here (and elsewhere too, apparently) when comparing cable to satellite.


Not anymore.

(Oh, and you cannot get Triple Play for $79 per month, here, either, anymore.)


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> The difference is that I'm correct, and you're not.


Now your just being silly. Explain to why your opinion is more relevant then others here ?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I had the cable company come in and wire 4 additional outlets in my house. Wouldn't someone there have told me if I was violating any TOS agreements merely by doing this? Or are we discussing two separate things?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> Now your just being silly. Explain to why your opinion is more relevant then others here ?


I've tried to provide you explanations in the past; you've demonstrated a categorical unwillingness to accept them.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> Or are we discussing two separate things?


Yes, two separate things. Having the outlets is one thing; having service on the outlets is another. And it isn't prohibited; there is simply a fee for that additional service on that additional outlet.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

I think a definition of "outlet" is needed. I have wall plate F connectors in 3 rooms. Do I have 3 outlets?

I choose to no longer have cable TV service, so I don't have a dog in this fight. But an outlet definition would help.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> Yes, two separate things. Having the outlets is one thing; having service on the outlets is another. And it isn't prohibited; there is simply a fee for that additional service on that additional outlet.


If you're getting anything other than basic service on them.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Brainiac 5 said:


> If you're getting anything other than basic service on them.


I'm only getting basic service. The cable company, both the installer and the person billing me for it, were well aware of this, as I told them specifically that I only wanted basic service (they tried to sell me digital) on all outlets. The tech verified that basic service worked.

I just can't see how this is anything other than what I am paying for, when I told them this specifically. I'm not getting this "for free" - it's exactly what I am billed for.

Now, they did NOT want to lease me CableCARDs though - they required that I upgrade to digital for that.  Maybe I could have taken that fight, but I didn't feel like it and went OTA for the HD instead.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

orangeboy said:


> I think a definition of "outlet" is needed. I have wall plate F connectors in 3 rooms. Do I have 3 outlets?


Outlets are virtual, not physical.



Brainiac 5 said:


> If you're getting anything other than basic service on them.


Indeed.



MickeS said:


> I'm only getting basic service.


The local, over-the-air broadcast channels.



MickeS said:


> ... I only wanted basic service (they tried to sell me digital)


Basic is not the opposite of digital. Basic service can be digital.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> that is kind of the whole point. You have devices that can map the clear QAM to guide data for the actual channel and you effectively had the cable company supply free HD service for a basic tier price as enforced by law.
> The waiver seems like valid reasoning to me in order to reverse that mistake in the law. Let those that want in unencumbered go OTA instead.


So wait a minute. Cable companies charge extra for locals in HD?

Mine doesn't. They have a HD tier that includes cable HD channels (Fox News, Discovery, CNN, HDNet etc) but locals are included in broadcast basic (and they tell you that).

Cablevision of all of them in fact always advertises that "HD is always free on io." Why the urge all of a sudden to lock it down?


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

84lion said:


> To me the best way for the consumer to maximize value in the Cablevision case is to have only the number of tuners required in the household and then deliver that signal throughout the house via internal cabling. In other words, rather than having a cable box at each "outlet," simply have one cable box in a central location that feeds TVs in each room. We do this with our Tivos.


Media center or Moxi and extenders.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

MickeS said:


> Now, they did NOT want to lease me CableCARDs though - they required that I upgrade to digital for that.  Maybe I could have taken that fight, but I didn't feel like it and went OTA for the HD instead.


Can they do that? I thought that they couldn't.


----------



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

it won't be long before the exceptions completely devour the rules.


----------



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

Raj said:


> Cablevision of all of them in fact always advertises that "HD is always free on io." Why the urge all of a sudden to lock it down?


Simple -- Capitalistic Greed.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Raj said:


> So wait a minute. Cable companies charge extra for locals in HD?


I don't think they can. Locals in HD are still broadcast channels in the basic tier.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Raj said:


> So wait a minute. Cable companies charge extra for locals in HD?


Yes. That's a reflection of an FCC decision that even I have a little trouble defending, that being their determination that downconversion does not constitute material degradation.

As an aside: Does anyone have a citation to that FCC Order handy? I cannot find it, and I would like to start, at least, bookmarking some of the more significant decisions, rather than having to Bing or Google them all the time.



Raj said:


> Mine doesn't. They have a HD tier that includes cable HD channels (Fox News, Discovery, CNN, HDNet etc) but locals are included in broadcast basic (and they tell you that).


That's the general case. However, what they generally do is different from what they're allowed to do. Also note that I know of a number of areas where they _used_ to charge extra for HD locals, where, for whatever reason, they don't anymore. So while they're allowed to, it is possible that incidence of them doing so is quite rare now.



Raj said:


> Cablevision of all of them in fact always advertises that "HD is always free on io." Why the urge all of a sudden to lock it down?


Well wait... Are you talking about this thread? This thread is *not* just about encrypting HD locals -- it is about encrypting *all* channels: including not only the HD locals, but the SD locals as well, if any (keeping mind that we're talking about an all-digital scenario, i.e., no analog channels whatsoever). In the NYC situation, the reason for encrypting local channels was cable theft.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Raj said:


> Can they do that? I thought that they couldn't.


In the context of the question you're asking, they are required to *either* provide local channels in the clear *OR* provide a way to rent CableCARDs for reception of them. They are not required to do both.



Brainiac 5 said:


> I don't think they can. Locals in HD are still broadcast channels in the basic tier.


See above. So in the context of this waiver, they are not allowed to require a higher tier package for you to get CableCARDs, whereas in the absence of the waiver, they would be.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

parzec said:


> it won't be long before the exceptions completely devour the rules.


This waiver is an exception -- a recognition that criminals are so numerous, in some areas, that regulatory relief from the rules is the only way to reestablish a fair balance. Other waivers, such as the referenced Hamptons waiver, the issue is *achievement* of one of the key goals: a competitive marketplace.

The ideal is *not* to have regulation -- the ideal is to have enough competition that regulation is no longer necessary. And that was indeed the determination in the case of the Hamptons.



parzec said:


> Simple -- Capitalistic Greed.


That's naive. In the NYC case, the reason is criminal activity. In the Hamptons case, the reason is effective competition. Your enmity towards capitalism, and your labeling of corporations fulfilling their legally-overriding fiduciary responsibility as "greed" is ridiculously.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MickeS said:


> Once again: no, they didn't get it for free. I pay $23 for basic cable - it's the lowest cost I can pay and still receive cable service. That's far from free. I get the service I pay for, and that includes unencrypted digital local channels.
> 
> What they want to do is charge MORE for this. Which is fine, because there is probably money to be made on it (and like bicker points out, if there was no value in it for the customers, it wouldn't be a big deal). But don't pretend that currently people get it "for free". Nobody does, as far as I know.


I said they get the Digital and HD for free and with no control by cable company, not that anyone gets all the cable service for free. The FCC is the one compelling this free service by a glitch in the rules and they have merely corrected that Glitch. So cable can now encrypt it and charge for it as to however people will see value and pay for it. I really see this as a minor correction versus any big change by the FCC.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> Yes. That's a reflection of an FCC decision that even I have a little trouble defending, that being their determination that downconversion does not constitute material degradation.


Interesting, I remember some controversy about exactly what the rules for OTA channels meant when things went digital, but didn't realize that this decision had been made. It does seem a bit odd, really...


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> The FCC is the one compelling this free service by a glitch in the rules and they have merely corrected that Glitch. So cable can now encrypt it and charge for it as to however people will see value and pay for it. I really see this as a minor correction versus any big change by the FCC.


What channels are you talking about? Cable has always been free to encrypt any channels that are not in the basic tier. For channels in the basic tier, they must charge no more for using additional connections than the cost of supporting them (which in most cases is zero). None of that is a glitch, it was intentionally put into the regulations to satisfy the requirements of the Cable Act of 1992.

If they want to charge extra for a channel per outlet, they can put it on a higher tier and encrypt it already. They got the exemption to stop non-customers from stealing service, not to prevent customers with basic from seeing basic on additional sets (as evidenced by all the freebies they'll give out so that people who are doing so can continue to do so at least for the next few years).


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Yes. That's a reflection of an FCC decision that even I have a little trouble defending, that being their determination that downconversion does not constitute material degradation.
> 
> As an aside: Does anyone have a citation to that FCC Order handy? I cannot find it, and I would like to start, at least, bookmarking some of the more significant decisions, rather than having to Bing or Google them all the time.


http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-170A1.pdf



> Well wait... Are you talking about this thread? This thread is not just about encrypting HD locals -- it is about encrypting all channels: including not only the HD locals, but the SD locals as well, if any (keeping mind that we're talking about an all-digital scenario, i.e., no analog channels whatsoever). In the NYC situation, the reason for encrypting local channels was cable theft.


The cable theft excuse is a lame one at best. I'm surprised the FCC bought it. In MDUs the cable company's area in the closet can be and in most cases is physically secured, and disconnecting service is a simple matter of tagging the line and removing it. When I lived in NYC in a high rise, Time Warner was at the building pretty often doing some thing or the other. My outlet was dead until I called to activate it. For cable modem customers only the best practice anyway is to put filters on the line to prevent unauthorized reception. Even my current provider, Service Electric, has a locked box on the side of my house for their tap and entry into the house.

Receiving local channels in NYC is easy since the transmitters are right there, literally line of sight. An indoor rabbit ears does the trick for most people. There's no need to use the cable company to get free OTA channels.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

dstoffa said:


> Why so? In urban NYC, do you realize how many cable drops cannot be disconnected, and persons in those dwellings are received 'free' broadcast basic?


That's even more troubling.

What if there's a signal issue or other problem on the "inaccessible" drop?

Most MDUs I've seen have a utility room that the cable company goes to at will. The doorman or super just lets them in or the cable company has a key. Those that don't have utility rooms have taps outside the buildings or on the poles.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Raj said:


> and no need for the cable company to be forced by rules to deliver them in better quality for free either


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> and no need for the cable company to be forced by rules to deliver them in better quality for free either


Again, OTA channels must be on the basic tier, and they can only charge actual cost for viewing those channels on additional connections. This decision does not change that; in fact, the cable company is actually going to *spend* money for the next few years giving people free additional outlets (tuning adapters or CableCARDs).


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> and no need for the cable company to be forced by rules to deliver them in better quality for free either


There is no "in better quality." With digital it's one and the same, and with the FCC rules there can be no material degradation.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Raj said:


> There is no "in better quality." With digital it's one and the same, and with the FCC rules there can be no material degradation.


Doesn't higher bitrate=better quality? Wouldn't an uncompressed OTA program have better quality than a compressed cable program?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Raj said:


> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-170A1.pdf


Thanks. However, that only outlines the parameters of what must be carried, in terms of what is owed by the service provider (ostensibly) to the broadcaster. The regulation (§ 76.62) also says, "If a digital television broadcast signal is carried in accordance with § 76.62(b) and either (c) or (d), the carriage of that signal in additional formats does not constitute material degradation." So it boils down to whether there is any requirement that the basic tier include the former signals versus the latter signals. We know, from nine years of history, that the answer is that they can charge for HD, so either that's a reflection of the fact that (1) downconversion is permitted, as per the regulation I quoted; and (2) providing only the downconverted signals on the basic tier not prohibited. A basic principle of the law is that something is allowed if (1) it is not prohibited, and (2) something else is not explicitly required. Or, there is something explicit that says that they're allowed, but now that I think about it (as described here), that's actually unnecessary.



Raj said:


> The cable theft excuse is a lame one at best. I'm surprised the FCC bought it.


Well reasonable people disagree. I think that a lot of people choose to ignore the reality of the casual disrespect many in our society have for other people's property.



Raj said:


> In MDUs the cable company's area in the closet can be and in most cases is physically secured, and disconnecting service is a simple matter of tagging the line and removing it.


A lot of those buildings are locked-up tight. There are some tough neighborhoods. I can just imagine how much cooperation the service providers get from residents and landlords, letting them in to cut-off service, and/or to audit whether the closet has been broken-into yet-again (not to mention the cost for re-securing service after such vandalism). And that's before you get to splitting service inside a unit, and running the coax through a window alongside the outside of the building to another unit.

Never underestimate the transgressive nature of some people looking to cheat the cable company.



Raj said:


> When I lived in NYC ...


I cannot tell you how much changes in NYC, from decade to decade.



Raj said:


> Receiving local channels in NYC is easy since the transmitters are right there, literally line of sight.


Or not easy, 2Edge instead of LOS, due to obstruction from high-rises.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Again, OTA channels must be on the basic tier, and they can only charge actual cost for viewing those channels on additional connections. This decision does not change that; in fact, the cable company is actually going to *spend* money for the next few years giving people free additional outlets (tuning adapters or CableCARDs).


Which is probably the more reliable indicator we have of just how much cable theft there is.



orangeboy said:


> Raj said:
> 
> 
> > There is no "in better quality." With digital it's one and the same, and with the FCC rules there can be no material degradation.
> ...


Absolutely, and the link Raj provided earlier (as well as the regulations I referenced earlier -- § 76.62) make it clear that bitrate compression does *not* constitute material degradation.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Raj said:


> There is no "in better quality." With digital it's one and the same, and with the FCC rules there can be no material degradation.


I was speaking to those who do not have LOS or other problems in getting the OTA signal. No need to compare cost of just using cable to getting better OTA signal as you can get basic cable and get a great clean signal on the OTA for no extra charge.

I am fine that theft is also another consideration but I would submit that cable company itself likely sees still a considerable chunk of revenue in the "theft" of multiple digital outlets* in the same residence.

*clear QAM


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I am fine that theft is also another consideration but I would submit that cable company itself likely sees still a considerable chunk of revenue in the "theft" of multiple digital outlets* in the same residence.


Which they don't need this waiver to fix. They don't have to send anything in clear QAM except the basic tier, and they can't charge anything more than cost for additional outlets on the basic tier anyway, so this has no effect on their profit from additional outlets.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Which is why some of their concessions are limited to folks who ONLY have basic.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Which they don't need this waiver to fix. They don't have to send anything in clear QAM except the basic tier,


and local OTA channels in clearQAM if all digital


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> and local OTA channels in clearQAM if all digital


And the local OTA channels have to be part of the basic tier, so again the law was specifically written to allow you to receive those on additional connections without paying anything except for any cost incurred to the cable company. It's not a "glitch" in the law, it's not a mistake, it's not something they hadn't considered; it's meant to be that way.

Bicker has pointed out that downrezzing to SD is apparently not considered material degredation, so those clear QAM local channels don't actually have to be HD. (Which is a bit odd, really, but that's the way it is.)


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Brainiac 5 said:


> And the local OTA channels have to be part of the basic tier, so again the law was specifically written to allow you to receive those on additional connections without paying anything except for any cost incurred to the cable company.


and this is exactly my point. The cable company is not putting them in a local tier by a business decision - they are forced by law to do so. So they can pay bucks to downrezz an HD to SD or the hole can be covered by allowing encryption.

The law on must carry for local OTA was never about making it available on multiple outlets - it was simply making sure the local stations on OTA could continue despite less use of OTA due to cable or DBS.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I am fine that theft is also another consideration but I would submit that cable company itself likely sees still a considerable chunk of revenue in the "theft" of multiple digital outlets* in the same residence.
> 
> *clear QAM


I think that is what they are calling "theft."

A lot of people buy new TVs and just hook them up to cable and don't rent an extra box and therefore don't pay an AO fee or equipment rental (cable box, cablecards).

I have heard of AO fees being as much as $6 per outlet which is unreasonable IMO. Why are you renting wiring for $6/month when you can buy it yourself for not much more?

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/nrcb4009.txt

"Q: Can the cable company charge for additional outlets?

A: Operators may charge you a monthly fee to recover the cost of the wiring and parts
installed and the estimated cost to maintain the outlet. This monthly fee generally will be
quite low. "


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

Raj said:


> That's even more troubling.
> 
> What if there's a signal issue or other problem on the "inaccessible" drop?
> 
> Most MDUs I've seen have a utility room that the cable company goes to at will. The doorman or super just lets them in or the cable company has a key. Those that don't have utility rooms have taps outside the buildings or on the poles.


Maybe for modern multiple dwelling homes, but for the majority of older homes (brownstones, etc.), there is no such utility room. In Manhattan anyway, in both my old buildings, the cable drops were from the roof, over the side, then down to a window, where the drop entered the apartment. The cable company will then need to 'roof hop' or gain access to a roof to terminate / add a drop. Sure, for adding service, an appointment can be made. Good luck forcing a tenant to stay home for the cable guy to come and disconnect. That person who is disconnecting will simply drop his equipment off at the nearest walk-in facility.

Maybe they've finally gone underground. I've been out of the loop, so I cannot say. If they've gone underground, then I am sure they'll need to open a manhole to get access.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

Raj said:


> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-170A1.pdf
> Receiving local channels in NYC is easy since the transmitters are right there, literally line of sight. An indoor rabbit ears does the trick for most people. There's no need to use the cable company to get free OTA channels.


Maybe. Maybe not. Sometimes indoor rabbit ears fail to perform because of something as simple as aluminum siding, plaster on expanded metal walls, copper clad roof, etc.

Just because one has line-of-sight, unless it's from a window, there is no guarantee that they'll be able to pick up all stations.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Another thing to keep in mind: A "low" price is relative. Generally, the people paying it will consider a price "higher" than the people charging it. That's why the FCC makes the determination, balancing the two perspectives. For additional outlets, a subscriber may peg "low" at $2 per month; the service provider at $12 per month; and the FCC could find that $8 per month is a fair balance. (Keep in mind that they don't blindly split the difference.  )


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> So they can pay bucks to downrezz an HD to SD or the hole can be covered by allowing encryption.


There's no hole. Local stations are HD now, there's no other version of them broadcast over the air. The cable company has to do something special to create a downrezzed SD version if they want to give you that. You seem to take it for granted that you should be charged extra for locals in HD. While I wouldn't really complain if they find a way to charge extra for HD while remaining in compliance with regulations, the regulations were written with the intention that you could get whatever is over the air as part of basic service, which you can get on additional outlets at cost.



> The law on must carry for local OTA was never about making it available on multiple outlets - it was simply making sure the local stations on OTA could continue despite less use of OTA due to cable or DBS.


That's right, the section of the law about must carry was not about making it available on multiple outlets. It's the section about multiple outlets that is about multiple outlets. You seem to think that I or others are arguing that you can get basic on multiple outlets with no charge because of some technicality in an unrelated regulation; that's not the case - there's a regulation that specifically limits what the cable company can charge for multiple outlets receiving the basic tier to the actual cost. It was intended and explicitly stated - it's not a glitch, an unintentional hole in the law, or an oversight.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Brainiac 5 said:


> You seem to think that I or others are arguing that you can get basic on multiple outlets with no charge because of some technicality in an unrelated regulation;


No, and thus you really are not getting what I am saying and it is not worth trying to keep explaining. No hard feelings I just have other things that need doing more.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

I think the reason we're not getting what you're saying is that you're wrong. It's either that, or you're just really bad at trying to explain yourself.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

wmcbrine said:


> It's either that, or you're just really bad at trying to explain yourself.


Thanks for the insult, I found it very useless


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> I think the reason we're not getting what you're saying is that you're wrong. It's either that, or you're just really bad at trying to explain yourself.


No I highly doubt that. It seems to me that Zeo is making a very important distinction, but a subtle one, that actually requires us to *think* about what he's written instead of just reacting to it. (And truth be told, I haven't tried to understand what he's been writing, myself, but by the same token, I haven't tried to reply to it, or as you did, personally attack him because he was trying to make a point I didn't understand.)



ZeoTiVo said:


> Thanks for the insult, I found it very useless


He's good for that, at least.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> No, and thus you really are not getting what I am saying and it is not worth trying to keep explaining. No hard feelings I just have other things that need doing more.


Well, I got that idea from "The law on must carry for local OTA was never about making it available on multiple outlets..."

I can't tell you what's worth it to you to try to keep explaining, but I can say that I'd like to understand your point, especially if I am misunderstanding it now. I have to admit I'm not completely certain that everyone in this thread isn't in "violent agreement" with each other, or at least it's possible we may all agree on the facts but have differences in opinion on what the regulations _should_ say.

Perhaps instead of trying to counter what I think you're saying, I could just ask about your view? Is it that you think the current regulations are doing a "moral wrong" to the cable company, is if so, what is it? And is it that you think the wrong is an unintended result of current regulations, or do you think the current regulations are intentionally unfair to the cable company? (Or do those questions have nothing to do with your point?)


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I can't tell you what's worth it to you to try to keep explaining, but I can say that I'd like to understand your point, especially if I am misunderstanding it now. I have to admit I'm not completely certain that everyone in this thread isn't in "violent agreement" with each other, or at least it's possible we may all agree on the facts but have differences in opinion on what


right - I think there is no really big differences here as to what the FCC was doing with the waiver - and on OTA I could be wrong as I did not exactly comb through it all and write down an analysis to make sure it was complete.
So with all that in mind I just decided to bail versus do the hard work of going back and detailing it all. 

and no I see no moral problem here or even big problem. The law was in parts and the waiver clears any ambiguity between them up and presents a clear course of action for cable vision. I see no evil conspiracies in this myself and think the FCC should be pro-business when it is in the markets interest. Some on NYC will have to either pay more or get less, but like someone said early on - those in that bucket likely were getting something for nothing before the waiver goes into effect and changes that.

For myself - I likely will be receiving digital in my house long before a waiver gets to my neck of the woods in NC, and being digital in itself means I will be on per outlet anyhow.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

The way I see it, all this waiver does is allow the cable company to enforce a per outlet fee, which they are entitled to.
The "must carry" law is of no consequence. If you want a second outlet, the cable company will give you a set top box (or cable card) which, from what I understand, would be in compliance with that law (correct me if I'm wrong).
This way, they can keep track of how many outlets a customer has.
The fee is incurred from adding the additional outlet and the cost to maintain that outlet. 
So you have a one time fee to "add" the outlet, and a monthly "tax" to maintain that outlet.

Like I said in the beginning, this is just the way I see it. Feel free to set me straight if I'm way off base here.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

steve614 said:


> The way I see it, all this waiver does is allow the cable company to enforce a per outlet fee, which they are entitled to.
> The "must carry" law is of no consequence. If you want a second outlet, the cable company will give you a set top box (or cable card) which, from what I understand, would be in compliance with that law (correct me if I'm wrong).
> This way, they can keep track of how many outlets a customer has.
> The fee is incurred from adding the additional outlet and the cost to maintain that outlet.
> ...


OK, with that explanation (if correct), I now understand what's being talked about! I had asked about an "outlet" definition, and figured it would be associated with some type of hardware (cable card or STB).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

steve614 said:


> The way I see it, all this waiver does is allow the cable company to enforce a per outlet fee, which they are entitled to.


This waiver allows them to actually encrypt the local over-the-air broadcast channels that they carry. That has effect beyond the context of digital outlets. And the intent is on controlling the first outlet.



steve614 said:


> The "must carry" law is of no consequence.


The Must Carry law has nothing to do with this waiver -- true.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

I agree with what everyone's saying and I think it all makes sense.

My only point before was that there are some circumstances in which the cable company is *not* legally entitled to an outlet fee, except to cover their actual costs associated with the outlet, which may be nothing. (In this case, when I say outlet, I mean a jack in the wall to which you've connected a TV or other device.)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> My only point before was that there are some circumstances


... specifically only those subscribers who have only the very lowest tier of service -- basically just the local over-the-air broadcast channels ...


Brainiac 5 said:


> in which the cable company is *not* legally entitled to an outlet fee, except to cover their actual costs associated with the outlet


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> ... specifically only those subscribers who have only the very lowest tier of service -- basically just the local over-the-air broadcast channels ...


Yes, agreed.


----------

