# FCC approves basic TV encryption



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12/cable-operators-can-fight-theft-by-encrypting-signals-fcc-rules.html

Bloomberg is reporting that late Friday the FCC granted encryption to the basic tier. Say goodbye to working clearqam tuners on any device that doesn't support modern CableCARDs and isn't connected to OTA.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017114106



> To limit the costs that affected consumers may face due to encryption, we adopt our proposed consumer-protection measures that require a cable operator that chooses to encrypt the basic service tier to: (i) offer to existing subscribers who subscribe only to the basic service tier and do not use a set-top box or CableCARD, the subscriber's choice of a set-top box or CableCARD on up to two television sets without charge for two years from the date of encryption; (ii) offer existing subscribers who subscribe to a level of service above "basic only" but use an additional television set to access only the basic service tier without the use of a set-top box or CableCARD at the time of encryption, the subscriber's choice of a set-top box or CableCARD on one television set without charge for one year from the date of encryption; and (iii) offer existing subscribers who receive Medicaid,82 subscribe only to the basic service tier, and do not use a settop box or CableCARD, the subscriber's choice of a set-top box or CableCARD on up to two television sets without charge for five years from the date of encryption.


Some Good Some Bad FCC Basic Tier Encryption


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

So this means CableCards will be free now, right? Right? No?


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Nope and most likely you will have to qualify for the free adapters which I believe they are only required to offer for 2 years.

They probably also won't update the digital rules that require TVs to come with tuners that now won't be usable without OTA.

EDIT: posted the offset above. We might be able to get 1 free CableCARD for a year from notice.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

wmcbrine said:


> So this means CableCards will be free now, right? Right? No?


No, and the worst of it is that the FCC just rolled over and said 'sure, you can encrypt everything!' without also saying 'but before you do that, you need to come up with an IP-based standard for TV delivery' to replace the damn cards. AllVid, in other words. Cable got everything they wanted (no more need for traps to stop theft, ability to impose outlet fees on every TV), we got nothing.

And the DTAs are no longer free on Comcast at least, and I'd bet the upcoming HD DTAs will be $5/mo. or so each. Goodbye, clear QAM tuners built into every TV.

This stuff happens because it's all too easy to roll from being an FCC commish to being head of gov't relations at Comcast.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Has there been any word on when some of the cable companies will start encrypting the local channels?


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

slowbiscuit said:


> No, and the worst of it is that the FCC just rolled over and said 'sure, you can encrypt everything!' without also saying 'but before you do that, you need to come up with an IP-based standard for TV delivery' to replace the damn cards. AllVid, in other words. Cable got everything they wanted (no more need for traps to stop theft, ability to impose outlet fees on every TV), we got nothing.


I believe you are wrong on this. I think at least the big 6 have to rollout an IP solution before encryption begins.

Boxee seems happy with the results so I believe it is required.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/14/fcc-to-allow-encryption-of-basic-cable-with-a-few-strings-that/



> 20. To mitigate any harm to the small group of consumers that may use such devices, NCTA's six largest incumbent cable members-serving 86 percent of all cable subscribers-have committed to adopt, prior to encrypting, a solution that would provide basic service tier access to third-party provided IP-enabled clear QAM devices.92 Pursuant to this commitment, these six cable operators will make basic service tier channels available either via connection from operator-supplied equipment or by providing access to the operator's security technology. Specifically, these cable operators have proposed to either (i) provide a converter box with "standard home networking capability" that can provide IP-enabled clear QAM devices access to basic service tier channels on the same terms proposed in the Encryption NPRM ("Option 1"),93 or (ii) enable IP-enabled clear QAM devices to access basic service tier channels without any additional hardware through the use of commercially available software upgrades ("Option 2").94 NCTA proposed to sunset these commitments three years after we adopt this Order unless the Commission extends them.95 Boxee and CEA argue that these commitments do not sufficiently support the operation of IP-enabled clear QAM devices. Instead, they advocate that all cable operators should be required to make the basic service tier available to IP-enabled devices without additional hardware.96


----------



## NotNowChief (Mar 29, 2012)

English please.

Am I going to need any extra/additional equipment on any TVs that currently have cable boxes or cable cards?

Am I going to be charged more for what I am currently using and am happy with?


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

NotNowChief said:


> English please.
> 
> Am I going to need any extra/additional equipment on any TVs that currently have cable boxes or cable cards?


No. This is a non-issue for CableCARD equipped boxes or set top boxes provided by the cable operator. Its only an issue if you have a TV connected directly via coax to clear QAM. For TiVo this is really a don't care -- hence the reason you didn't see TiVo provide any comments to the FCC on this matter.



NotNowChief said:


> Am I going to be charged more for what I am currently using and am happy with?


Nope.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> No, and the worst of it is that the FCC just rolled over and said 'sure, you can encrypt everything!' without also saying 'but before you do that, you need to come up with an IP-based standard for TV delivery' to replace the damn cards.


Why would / should they institute regulations to allow people to not have CableCards when the intent from the very outset (20 years ago) was for every person to have a CableCard?



slowbiscuit said:


> Cable got everything they wanted (no more need for traps to stop theft


Cable companies (at least the major ones) have not used traps for years. It was a goofy and frail technology from the get-go.



slowbiscuit said:


> ability to impose outlet fees on every TV), we got nothing.


They have always been able to do that. In the early days, most did. Few, other than Comcast, do it these days, however.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=225922&site=lr_cable&


----------



## NotNowChief (Mar 29, 2012)

sbiller said:


> No. This is a non-issue for CableCARD equipped boxes or set top boxes provided by the cable operator. Its only an issue if you have a TV connected directly via coax to clear QAM. For TiVo this is really a don't care -- hence the reason you didn't see TiVo provide any comments to the FCC on this matter.
> 
> Nope.


Well, this renders the QAM tuners useless for non-OTA customers. I know with FiOs, if you have a QAM tuner TV, you will get basic channels without equipment, even in HD. TWC even gets you the basic chanels, although they dont come up where they are supposed to.

A bummer for my unused rooms that are connected "just because".

Of course, many TiVo customers will now undoubtedly grab a TiVo Mini if they manage to get them to market before 2025.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

NotNowChief said:


> Well, this renders the QAM tuners useless for non-OTA customers. I know with FiOs, if you have a QAM tuner TV, you will get basic channels without equipment, even in HD. TWC even gets you the basic chanels, although they dont come up where they are supposed to.
> 
> A bummer for my unused rooms that are connected "just because".
> 
> Of course, many TiVo customers will now undoubtedly grab a TiVo Mini if they manage to get them to market before 2025.


I know this will have a big negative effect on my father's house. He has one TV hooked up to DirecTV. This TV and all the rest, 5 I think, use basic cable from Brighthouse since he didn't want a box in the other rooms. He also has it for a backup when DirecTV loses signal.

I don't know what he will end up doing for those other rooms.


----------



## Aero 1 (Aug 8, 2007)

man, i am so glad i went ota/streaming only 2 years ago and that i dont have to deal with all these headaches anymore. 

people who had extra, seldom watched tv's had a good variety of channels without extra gear. now they have to pay a monthly price (after the free year is over) just to let it sit there. 

this is going to go over well with the old people. my parents in law, whos lives revolve around watching tv 24 hours a day, are pissed that cablevision in nj encrypted everything last month and now in 11 months, they have to pay $7 a month to watch tv in their kitchen.....because that's all they do. 

cutting this hassle was a great move. all major ota channels and more, tivo, and streaming services has been a 100% replacement.


----------



## Len McRiddles (Dec 21, 2002)

Aero 1 said:


> man, i am so glad i went ota/streaming only 2 years ago and that i dont have to deal with all these headaches anymore.
> 
> people who had extra, seldom watched tv's had a good variety of channels without extra gear. now they have to pay a monthly price (after the free year is over) just to let it sit there.
> 
> ...


Amen brother. I cut the cord in 2009.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I would love to cut the cord. But it would cost me much more if I did to get the same programs I'm watching now.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

innocentfreak said:


> I believe you are wrong on this. I think at least the big 6 have to rollout an IP solution before encryption begins.
> 
> Boxee seems happy with the results so I believe it is required.
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/14/fcc-to-allow-encryption-of-basic-cable-with-a-few-strings-that/


True, but from what I read the mandate is only for 3 years, then cable can ditch it and leave everyone hanging.

And it doesn't address what I said, a standard to replace the damn cards, which is what AllVid was supposed to be about.


----------



## ghuido (May 9, 2007)

To be clear, they won't just start encrypting so that MRV (Copy) will no longer work on TIVO HD that don't have stream capability?


----------



## Aero 1 (Aug 8, 2007)

ghuido said:


> To be clear, they won't just start encrypting so that MRV (Copy) will no longer work on TIVO HD that don't have stream capability?


you never know, they might.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/15/3506030/fcc-allows-basic-cable-encryption-protects-consumers-open-access


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

ghuido said:


> To be clear, they won't just start encrypting so that MRV (Copy) will no longer work on TIVO HD that don't have stream capability?


No, that's not the same thing. That's done via a flag and is independent of the encryption. There is still a rule in place that requires the cable companies not to flag local channels. Everything else has always been fair game even if it wasn't encrypted.

Dan


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

innocentfreak said:


> I believe you are wrong on this. I think at least the big 6 have to rollout an IP solution before encryption begins.


Argh. Sounds like a hodgepodge of solutions that don't really address the full scope of the problem. Now if/when the FCC turns around and tries to push a solution for non-basic services we'll hear "whoa is me, you already made us spend all this money on a clear QAM solution."


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Len McRiddles said:


> Amen brother. I cut the cord in 2009.


Same here in 2006.


----------



## NotNowChief (Mar 29, 2012)

Dan203 said:


> No, that's not the same thing. That's done via a flag and is independent of the encryption. There is still a rule in place that requires the cable companies not to flag local channels. Everything else has always been fair game even if it wasn't encrypted.
> 
> Dan


Someone should tell TWC in NYC about that. This is one of the main reasons why I dumped them a few weeks ago. I could deal with the flag on the cable channels where I couldn't watch my recorded shows wherever I wanted in the house on my other DVRs, but the regulars, CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC was just an outright jab by them. Blatant disregard for the FCC.

Henceforth, good riddance to the biggest incompetent conglomerate I have ever dealt with in my life.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

NotNowChief said:


> Someone should tell TWC in NYC about that. This is one of the main reasons why I dumped them a few weeks ago. I could deal with the flag on the cable channels where I couldn't watch my recorded shows wherever I wanted in the house on my other DVRs, but the regulars, CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC was just an outright jab by them. Blatant disregard for the FCC.
> 
> Henceforth, good riddance to the biggest incompetent conglomerate I have ever dealt with in my life.


You should have filed a complaint to the FCC.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

NotNowChief said:


> Well, this renders the QAM tuners useless for non-OTA customers. I know with FiOs, if you have a QAM tuner TV, you will get basic channels without equipment, even in HD.


That's not true. Only the SD channels, the ones lower than 50, which are just the local ones excluding their sub-channels. Plus you get Univision and maybe WGN, all in SD.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

ghuido said:


> To be clear, they won't just start encrypting so that MRV (Copy) will no longer work on TIVO HD that don't have stream capability?


I'm pretty sure that FCC requirement still stands. What the Cable Companies got was the ability to encrypt (but not copy protect) basic cable.

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure Comcast already got a waiver to do this, hence the need for DTAs.

I'm not sure what this really gets them though since anyone who subscribes would get at least basic cable (or at least be charged for basic cable). The only thing I can think of is that it doesn't require a truck roll to disconnect a customer's service, since they won't need to physically disconnect the cable. That would make adding/removing service at an address as simply as making a phone call, assuming the previous owner had cable.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

http://publicknowledge.org/blog/some-good-some-bad-fcc-basic-tier-encryption-


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

I wonder if there's any chance we'll see CableCARD return to sets as a result of this.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

nrc said:


> I wonder if there's any chance we'll see CableCARD return to sets as a result of this.


Unlikely since there was nothing stopping set manufacturers from adding CableCARDs currently. They might simply remove QAM tuners to save money.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

magnus said:


> Same here in 2006.


I cut the cord in 1995 ... when I moved out of my parents house. 
Cable is great when you don't have to pay for it.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

"small group of consumers"?????


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

innocentfreak said:


> http://publicknowledge.org/blog/some-good-some-bad-fcc-basic-tier-encryption-


Which again, advocates for AllVid as a solution to all this 'pay by the box' nonsense. The MSOs want nothing to do with it because they want to control the user experience and get all that extra revenue from BS like outlet fees. Full encryption gives them everything they want, and all they have to deliver is some dubious, short-term basic cable IP 'standard' that won't replace cards.

Oh well, at least it's better than what sat and U-Verse have to do with full encryption, which is nothing. AllVid would've changed that too.


----------



## buscuitboy (Aug 8, 2005)

While cable companies will never admit this, I think the effects of people "cutting the cord" are far greater than they truly want to admit & starting to take hold more and more these days. Its ultimately cutting into their revenue. Therefore, they are pulling all these moves to try and make up for the lost revenue.

Comcrap has been pulling cable card shenanigans with me lately & I have been getting fed up. So much so that I have been seriously looking into alternatives from products made by Ceton & SiliconDust. They would allow ONE cable card to feed as many TVs as I want throughout the house without ANY kind of additional cable card fees from Comcast.

I haven't fully pulled the trigger yet, but recently, Comcrap pulled yet ANOTHER billing move to try and increase my bill that could just put me over the edge. I have had two free DTA boxes from Comcrap for a long time that are hooked up to rarely used TVs in a basement. They were letting customers have two free DTA boxes on their account and then each additional one would be $2/month.

Comcast then decided this past July that ALL future DTA boxes would be an additional $2 per month, but we were told that those that already had their 2 free DTA boxes would be grandfathered into this and wouldn't be charged.

Well, just last week, I see two new charges creep onto my bill for these supposedly free DTA boxes I was suppose to get. I posted this complaint on the Comcast forum and one person replied that they were told they will now be charged because they want to *"capture REVENUE and establish value for new and existing DTA users..."*

I know its not much, but they keep nickel and diming customers and between this little move & this recent announcement of encrypting ALL channels, it might just do it for me. I'll either try my solution mentioned above or simply go OTA for my TiVos along with Netflix, Hulu Plus and bit torrent/usenet everything else (and transfer it to TiVos via pyTivo)


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

People keep saying that tons of people are the cord, but haven't there been a lot of actual studied, showing the #s are small?

People still want news (/politically slanted 'news') and sports.. which you can't get when you cut the cord.


----------



## buscuitboy (Aug 8, 2005)

mattack said:


> People still want news (/politically slanted 'news') and sports.. which you can't get when you cut the cord.


Actually, if you have the knowledge and know-how, there are LOTS of ways to truly get live sports over the internet. I won't post the info here, but it can be done. I practically watched an entire hockey season from just about every market other than mine with no problems.

I'm sure there are ways to get live news, but just haven't really tried yet.


----------



## JZC (Jul 24, 2007)

I just got a letter in the mail today from Comcast (Portland, OR) saying that basic cable channels (2 to 31) will go digital on December 11, 2012. The letter indicates that I can get 3 free digital adapters (boxes or cablecards). They don't specify how long those are free. It also says that QAM tuners will still be able to get these channels without an adapter.

-Jeff


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

I have no trouble getting live news via networks and internet feeds. Live sports on the other hand is a bit lacking.

After the fact is easy but not live. For the very few times a year that we want to watch a live game that is not broadcast localally, we head down to our neiborhood sports bar and enjoy an evening there.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

buscuitboy said:


> Actually, if you have the knowledge and know-how, there are LOTS of ways to truly get live sports over the internet. I won't post the info here, but it can be done. I practically watched an entire hockey season from just about every market other than mine with no problems.


With crappy quality and unreliable streams, sure, unless you pay by the sport to get the official streams available. That's the way it is for NFL bootlegs at least.

Not that I would know anything about that.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> With crappy quality and unreliable streams, sure, unless you pay by the sport to get the official streams available. That's the way it is for NFL bootlegs at least.
> 
> Not that I would know anything about that.


For baseball, hockey and football, you can use a Playstation 3 to get live (non-blacked out) games via the MLB, NHL and NFL Sunday Ticket subscriptions.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Apparently we will soon no longer have cable companies, we will have cable box companies.

I bet they're trying to figure out how to get away with charging additional rent on the cable that runs from the pedestal to the service entrance/demarcation point on the side of the house.


----------



## Aero 1 (Aug 8, 2007)

morac said:


> For baseball, hockey and football, you can use a Playstation 3 to get live (non-blacked out) games via the MLB, NHL and NFL Sunday Ticket subscriptions.


there are ways around blackouts, obviously the average consumer wont know how to do it, but its easy. its in my sig. thats how i watched the local sh*tty Mets all season and thats how i am currently watching the TBS playoffs.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

morac said:


> For baseball, hockey and football, you can use a Playstation 3 to get live (non-blacked out) games via the MLB, NHL and NFL Sunday Ticket subscriptions.


None of those services work except for out of market teams so it is not a solution for 99% of people. Sure there are ways to work around these limitations or to watch illegal feeds online. But your average consumer isn't able to do this. That is the current problem with "cutting the cord" and why it isn't really a big group of users. The technical knowledge required to consume media outside of cable/satellite is still too high. I know people on this forum think it isn't but we are not the average consumer.


----------



## buscuitboy (Aug 8, 2005)

jcthorne said:


> I have no trouble getting live news via networks and internet feeds. Live sports on the other hand is a bit lacking.
> 
> After the fact is easy but not live.


Not true. I got LIVE hockey feeds ALL season long via the internet with no problems.

I think the cable industry is desperately trying to cling on to their business model for as long as possible and not let it get crippled by the internet like the music industry did. Apple has been trying for YEARS to crack this model & come out with some sort of a-la-cart based programming for their Apple TV, but has been unsuccessful.

Networks bundle their channels together and sell them as "packages" to cable companies. Therefore, if you want CNN, you have to also buy TNT, TCM, Cartoon and TBS (ALL Turner networks). No choice. Doing it this way is a HUGE source of revenue for the networks. No reason they would break up that business model and sell individual channels that would most likely get them a fraction of the revenue. Most people are not gonna buy TCM or Cartoon network when they may just want the live sports and news with TNT & CNN.

Of course, it also becomes a problem down the road when a network and cable/satellite provider can't agree to terms for a new contract. ALL of that network's channels then wind up getting yanked. DISH and DirectTV keep running into this.

Slowly, its changing, but I still think its a long way away before there is any kind of true a-la-cart programming allowed. In the meantime, I'll just keep sharing my Netflix account with family members while they share their HBOGO, [email protected] & Hulu Plus accounts with me. 'Share the wealth' is the alternative to all these BS charges imposed by the cable companies


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Only one of my TiVo's would be unaffected by this move. Seems like nothing more than a money grab and I'm surprised the FCC is allowing it. I was thinking of getting a new TV soon, but now I think I'll wait since I may have to purchase other equipment to keep my TiVos working.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

rainwater said:


> None of those services work except for out of market teams so it is not a solution for 99% of people. Sure there are ways to work around these limitations or to watch illegal feeds online. But your average consumer isn't able to do this. That is the current problem with "cutting the cord" and why it isn't really a big group of users. The technical knowledge required to consume media outside of cable/satellite is still too high. I know people on this forum think it isn't but we are not the average consumer.


Technically that's not a cable company problem. That's a "our team sucks and we can't fill our stadium so instead of lowering our ticket prices let's whine to Congress to get black out rules" problem.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> Only one of my TiVo's would be unaffected by this move. Seems like nothing more than a money grab and I'm surprised the FCC is allowing it. I was thinking of getting a new TV soon, but now I think I'll wait since I may have to purchase other equipment to keep my TiVos working.


What, you're trying to say the FCC is not in the pocket of BigCo, Inc. and does a fair and balanced job for both corp's and consumers? You're trying to say that an FCC commish can't leave there for a lucrative post at some company that they regulate?

Oh, wait... 

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-to-approve-its-deal-with-nbc-universal.shtml


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> What, you're trying to say the FCC is not in the pocket of BigCo, Inc. and does a fair and balanced job for both corp's and consumers? You're trying to say that an FCC commish can't leave there for a lucrative post at some company that they regulate?
> 
> Oh, wait...
> 
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-to-approve-its-deal-with-nbc-universal.shtml


Lately the FCC has been more consumer friendly, i.e. Net Neutrality. I was just thinking that it would be otherwise for them now. The way the CNet article posed it though it seemed like the FCC was doing it since no one else had to keep basic channels unencrypted but the cable companies. Sat and Phone based systems were excluded.

Goes back to the whole thing of if it isn't fair to everyone, lets make it an even playing field at the expense of the public.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Stormspace said:


> Lately the FCC has been more consumer friendly, i.e. Net Neutrality. I was just thinking that it would be otherwise for them now. The way the CNet article posed it though it seemed like the FCC was doing it since no one else had to keep basic channels unencrypted but the cable companies. Sat and Phone based systems were excluded.
> 
> Goes back to the whole thing of if it isn't fair to everyone, lets make it an even playing field at the expense of the public.


But that goes back on the FCC. They are the ones who decided to grant the waivers to these companies so they didn't fall all under the same rule iirc.


----------



## mfranch007 (Oct 19, 2012)

morac said:


> For baseball, hockey and football, you can use a Playstation 3 to get live (non-blacked out) games via the MLB, NHL and NFL Sunday Ticket subscriptions.


I know you can do it with MLB and NHL, but how can you get NFL on a PS3? I always thought the "legal" way was to only have DirectTV in order to get NFL (Sunday ticket). Or are you referring to be able to get the NFL on a PS3 ONLY if you also have DirectTV?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

mfranch007 said:


> I know you can do it with MLB and NHL, but how can you get NFL on a PS3? I always thought the "legal" way was to only have DirectTV in order to get NFL (Sunday ticket). Or are you referring to be able to get the NFL on a PS3 ONLY if you also have DirectTV?


You don't need DirectTV, but it costs $300 if you don't have it.

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2012...-ticket-returns-to-ps3-launches-in-september/
http://us.playstation.com/psn/nfl/faq/


----------



## JoeTaxpayer (Dec 23, 2008)

So the DVD playing, free 3 day recording Toshiba SD-H400 will now be a boat anchor? 

This was my first TiVo, it gave me a taste for DVRs and, even without the full service, was a nice device, especially the second hand ones that were cheap and worked well on the small TVs. 

After the encryption, that will make these useless? 
Sad to throw out something that still worked until this change.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

JoeTaxpayer said:


> So the DVD playing, free 3 day recording Toshiba SD-H400 will now be a boat anchor?
> 
> This was my first TiVo, it gave me a taste for DVRs and, even without the full service, was a nice device, especially the second hand ones that were cheap and worked well on the small TVs.
> 
> ...


Can you still use it with a coupon box?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

JoeTaxpayer said:


> So the DVD playing, free 3 day recording Toshiba SD-H400 will now be a boat anchor?


No, it's not relevant to that. This is about encryption of digital channels. That device only tunes analog. Either you already have a way of getting digital channels (with the TiVo controlling an external tuner box), which won't change if they're encrypted; or else your cable system is still providing (some) analog channels. They may continue to do so, or not, but this ruling has no bearing on that.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

morac said:


> For baseball, hockey and football, you can use a Playstation 3 to get live (non-blacked out) games via the MLB, NHL and NFL Sunday Ticket subscriptions.


you can get in market MLB live without cable? (I was under the impression that you had to be a cable sub to get the local stream enabled- but maybe things have changed?)

If Tivo could work that app into the box then cord cutting could be a possibility for me.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

morac said:


> Technically that's not a cable company problem. That's a "our team sucks and we can't fill our stadium so instead of lowering our ticket prices let's whine to Congress to get black out rules" problem.


actually i think it IS a cable company problem. I believe you CAN stream NY Baseball games locally IF you are a local cable subscriber.

here's the example:
http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/mlb/subscriptions/inmarket/index.jsp?c_id=nyy


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> actually i think it IS a cable company problem. I believe you CAN stream NY Baseball games locally IF you are a local cable subscriber.
> 
> here's the example:
> http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/mlb/subscriptions/inmarket/index.jsp?c_id=nyy


I believe the Yankees are an anomaly. Most teams don't have their own channel like the Yankees do with YES.

Also blackout rules apply to the local team. The rules were designed to get locales to come to the stadium so the blackout is only lifted if tickets sell out.


----------



## buscuitboy (Aug 8, 2005)

morac said:


> You don't need DirectTV, but it costs $300 if you don't have it.
> 
> http://blog.us.playstation.com/2012...-ticket-returns-to-ps3-launches-in-september/
> http://us.playstation.com/psn/nfl/faq/


 I wasn't aware that there is now a way you can get NFL Sunday Ticket WITHOUT DirectTV. Looks like its only a $100 more than the normal price of $200.

While its a little more expensive, it would still be cheaper than having to also pay for a monthly subscription to DirecTV. Which seems to normally be anywhere from $55-75/month so it would only be about 4-6 months to be at a break even point. Good to know.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

P.S.:



wmcbrine said:


> ... or else your cable system is still providing (some) analog channels. They may continue to do so, or not, but this ruling has no bearing on that.


I should say, no _direct_ bearing. It's possible that, with the ability to fully encrypt, some cable systems will perceive an advantage in switching to an all-digital lineup that they did not perceive when they still had to keep the basics unencrypted. But there were already reasons to go all-digital (like reclaiming bandwidth), and there are still reasons not to (like avoiding pissing off customers with analog cable-ready equipment). I'm not sure this ruling changes the equation all that much. The long-term trend is towards all-digital service, anyway.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I guess the question one needs to ask is will this ruling also allow encryption of basic analog channels? If so then it would directly affect analog cable users.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

morac said:


> I guess the question one needs to ask is will this ruling also allow encryption of basic analog channels? If so then it would directly affect analog cable users.


I believe you have to make the full digital transition before you are allowed to encrypt.


----------



## thomb (Jan 22, 2008)

morac said:


> I believe the Yankees are an anomaly...


There are other baseball teams other than the Yankees and Red Sox???? You'd never know it if you've ever watched the Eastern SPorts Network.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

morac said:


> I guess the question one needs to ask is will this ruling also allow encryption of basic analog channels? If so then it would directly affect analog cable users.


Well if a cable company wanted to encrypt basic cable/ota channels and they can not do it to analog channels we all know what their solution will be - go all digital.


----------



## GAViewer (Oct 18, 2007)

The local cable company (TruVista) is going all encrypted digital. They are doing it by sections. My area still has the basic (channels below 60) as clear analog. However my son's area is fully digital, there is only one analog channel. Channel 2 has a still image saying to receive any channels you need to contact the cable company office.


----------

