tigrzeye
Control4 Certified Installer
join:2007-07-18
LHV, PA
| reply to s4v8
Re: [CATV] Clear QAM channels slowly disappearing in Boston?
In the long scheme of things the reason I have always had cable (when it is an option) is that I didn't need to have a box for every tv in the house like you do for satellite programming. Now I still have cable because in my experience, certainly not an expert one, I find the cable picture to be superior to the DirecTv picture. The cost of satellite programming and their equipment is certainly a plus, and right now here in the Lehigh Valley, they certainly have the HD advantage with a bunch more channels available.
Since more and more people ARE heading towards satellite tv viewing it is making the playing field less dependent on that no need for a box advantage cable tv had. Cable is seeing that they can create revenue and limit the number of "free" televisions hanging off of consumer added splitters. With needing STB's for every tv in the house, they can control and garner additional revenue.
The competition satellite tv created has had a negative effect. They can do it, so why can't we is what cable is possibly thinking. We the consumer certainly lost this time. |
|
rcnman
Jason Nealis
Premium,VIP
join:2003-05-02
Herndon, VA
| reply to moulder3
said by moulder3  : quote:
rcnman: By going all digital it allows us to deploy a large amount of HD channels. This wouldn't be possible if we maintained a large analog lineup.
Well, that's only half true... RCN could go all digital and NOT encrypt the channels, if you wanted. It's not that you're going all-digital that is the issue with most people on this board. We understand it's necessary to do that to add HD. But it's a bait-and-switch when you say you have to take away UNENCRYPTED analog and replace it with ENCRYPTED digital!! There's no reason not to keep digital channels in the clear, except that you want $$$ for box rentals. I think you guys should be honest about it, at least! I pay $100 a month for TV, and am less than thrilled I'll need to rent additional boxes, despite having QAM tuners in my tvs. Most deals with our providers (non-broadcast) have in the contract the channel must be encrypted. This is true for most if not all cable companies.
--
Jason Nealis,
Sr. Director, Video Product and Network Operations |
|
tigrzeye
Control4 Certified Installer
join:2007-07-18
LHV, PA | We receive non-broadcast digital tier channels now that are not encrypted. Are these new, just penned contracts you speak of?? |
|
moulder3
join:2007-05-21
Boston, MA
| reply to rcnman
Wow, I didn't know most non-broadcast channels required encryption...I apologize for the rant then, rcnman!
This just leads me to thinking we need a-la-carte channels even QUICKER! I know some people disagree, but I think most advertiser-supported channels would quickly reduce their carriage fees, once they felt the massive loss of customers (which is how cable companies determine ad revenue), not viewership.
I think it's pretty crazy that (in our current setup) we all have to pay for channels like USA network that air tons of ads AND edit every movie they show. To me, I'd drop just about every basic channel except the ESPNs (which, I know, is expensive) and simply buy premium channels!
...I know everyone is different, though. That's the whole point of a la carte! |
|
nycityny
Premium
join:2005-08-09
New York, NY
 ·PHONE POWER
·VoicePulse
 ·RCN CABLE
·ViaTalk
| reply to s4v8
This whole idea of a requirement to encrypt sounds fishy to me. The cable companies require customers to use their equipment. Then content providers contractually require that cable company-owned equipment be needed to receive programming. Sounds like collusion to me.
When RCN gets around to making NYC all digital I'll either go to Time Warner or purchase HD TIVO boxes for my television sets. With all the problems I read on these boards with RCN-supplied DVRs there is no way I'd pay RCN those high rental fees to watch the shows I can watch today with such extortion. |
|
rcbrcb
Premium
join:2007-02-21
Chicago, IL
 ·DIRECTV
·RCN CABLE
·T-Mobile VoIP
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to s4v8
Trust me when I say this discussion is not going to change the minds of the Brain Trust at RCN. We beat the issue into them when they did the Analog Crush here in Chicago about the HD QAM channels and they would not budge. As long as they provide the SD version of the local channels in the clear on QAM, they are in compliance with FCC rules, nothing else HAS to be delivered "In the Clear".
This is, of course, a revenue based decision on RCN's part. The encryption of the HD QAM channels has NOTHING to do with regaining bandwidth, but everything to do with requiring the rental to STB's to its customers. I am all for the switch to full digital, as it has brought me many more HD channels, which is GREAT. But the encryption of the HD QAM Channels is straight BS on RCN's part.
I swiched to only Series 3 HD Tivo's after the Analog Crush and only pay RCN $4.50 total per month for the 3 Cable Cards. I simply did'nt want to pay RCN for the equipment every month and besides that, their equipment is garbage anyway! The only thing I lost was the abilty to have VOD, which in the 9 years I have been with RCN, I had not used ONCE! |
|
KungFu_Toe
@pg.com
| reply to s4v8
I've lost TBS HD, FOOD HD, CW HD, and HGTV HD. If RCN is not willing to negotiate with providers regarding clear QAM, then they will lose the one market advantage that they have over Comcast. Also, there is no need to encrypt every channel just because of the one or two providers who insist on encrypting their channels. I will be switching to Direct TV, once Microsoft's Media Center adds support for it. On that note, I'd be interested to see what happened to RCN's customer base in Chicago when they started encrypting everything. |
|
rcbrcb
Premium
join:2007-02-21
Chicago, IL
·DIRECTV
·RCN CABLE
·T-Mobile VoIP
·AT&T U-Verse
·T-Mobile US
3 edits | RCN can say all day long that the content providers are requiring the encryption of the QAM feeds but that is BS and it is just a money grab for monthly STB rental fees. While I feel the Analog Crush is a good move for RCN and has given me many more HD channels here in Chicago, the encryption of the HD QAM feeds is a really bad PR move. Since RCN has made the move, Comcats is now beginning to do the same in Chicago. It's kinda like when one airline raises their rates, the others follow. |
|
E512N
join:2007-05-22
Chicago, IL
| said by rcbrcb :Since RCN has made the move, Comcats is now beginning to do the same in Chicago. It's kinda like when one airline raises their rates, the others follow. I appreciate the tinfoil hat sentiment here, but have you considered the possibility that RCN (and particularly the responsive, helpful employees who have for years supported the people on this forum) might actually have been telling us the truth? And that now it's a matter of Comcast also dealing with the same content licensing/access/encryption protocols required by the content providers?
I don't know what the real story is - and yeah, I'm still annoyed at the encryption - but I find it far more likely that the upstream content providers are the ones behind this. The whole DRM stupidity, broadcast kill flag nonsense, etc. would pretty much align with a move toward requiring providers to encrypt content. Just wait for the "thou shalt not skip commercials" nonsense. That's all the networks old-skool licensing model protection and inability to adapt to a changing ad revenue model. |
|
billymac
join:2008-05-16
01802
| said by E512N :said by rcbrcb :Since RCN has made the move, Comcats is now beginning to do the same in Chicago. It's kinda like when one airline raises their rates, the others follow. I appreciate the tinfoil hat sentiment here, but have you considered the possibility that RCN (and particularly the responsive, helpful employees who have for years supported the people on this forum) might actually have been telling us the truth? And that now it's a matter of Comcast also dealing with the same content licensing/access/encryption protocols required by the content providers? I don't know what the real story is - and yeah, I'm still annoyed at the encryption - but I find it far more likely that the upstream content providers are the ones behind this. The whole DRM stupidity, broadcast kill flag nonsense, etc. would pretty much align with a move toward requiring providers to encrypt content. Just wait for the "thou shalt not skip commercials" nonsense. That's all the networks old-skool licensing model protection and inability to adapt to a changing ad revenue model. I am thankful for those that monitor this forum. It is nice to have people that can answer questions intelligibly and not have to call a support line.
However, encrypting local HD's is not being pushed by the upstream providers. They give away their signal for free. Actually, they invest a lot of money so that people can get their signal. I can't see them being happy about a carry limiting the number of viewers that can see their channel.
I actually wonder what the local station's opinion on this issue is. I think I start sending a few emails and see what results.
Billy |
|
mrbigk
join:2004-01-22
Natick, MA
| reply to E512N
said by [bquote= rcbrcb :I don't know what the real story is - and yeah, I'm still annoyed at the encryption - but I find it far more likely that the upstream content providers are the ones behind this. The whole DRM stupidity, broadcast kill flag nonsense, etc. would pretty much align with a move toward requiring providers to encrypt content. Just wait for the "thou shalt not skip commercials" nonsense. That's all the networks old-skool licensing model protection and inability to adapt to a changing ad revenue model. Do you really believe PBS is requiring their HD signal to be encrypted? |
|
foom
@rcn.com
| said by mrbigk :Do you really believe PBS is requiring their HD signal to be encrypted? Well, if you call RCN they'll try to convince you that the FCC is requiring them to encrypt the channels, and that's obviously complete bull****. They obviously don't care about truth here...
Also, btw, pretty much all channels are now gone.
As of now, only 2-22, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 83 (local access), 153, and 173 are available.
I assume the remaining channels other than 2-22 will be disappearing soon now. (Note that although phone tech support claimed 2-22 and 83-98 would be the only channels left unencrypted, most of the channels in the 83-98 range have in fact become encrypted now..)
To make matters worse, RCN has shown their utter contempt for me as their customer by so far failing to even bother to reply to the email I sent to cabletv@rcn.com last Thursday. Bravo. |
|
foom
@rcn.com | Did anyone get any notice from RCN that they'd be shutting off their QAM channels?
I don't recall getting any notice, but maybe I just missed it? |
|
dworsky
join:2004-10-29
Somerville, MA
| No notice from RCN. In Somerville, I lost almost all SD stations yesterday, and even CBS-HD was cut out last week or the week before.
Now the only things left are NBC-HD, ABC-HD, PBS-HD, FOX-HD, and a few only foreign language and shopping channels.
UGG! |
|
Paul_Brookline
@rcn.com
| reply to s4v8
All non-network QAM channels in Brookline were encrypted yesterday, including several local channels as well as WGBH World and WGBH Create (local PBS sub-channels).
I've reported RCN's unannounced policy change to the Mass. Dept. of telecommunications and Cable (www.state.ma.us), my town's broadband monitoring committee, the consumer affairs reporter at WCVB, the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission.
If large numbers of customers from multiple cities complain, something may change.
I am particularly annoyed because I asked the RCN sales rep. specific, detailed questions to ensure that I would not need a cable box. I purchased a Samsung HDTV based on the assurance I received from RCN that a QAM tuner would enable me to receive all my expanded basic programming.
I would not have ordered RCN service if I knew that a cable box was required for every TV in my house - a backdoor way of doubling my cable bill.
Even today, RCN has not provided any customer notice of changes to our service. I have no way of knowing if equipment purchased today will be usable a week from now, or if analog programming I view on my old TV will suddenly disappear. |
|
rcbrcb
Premium
join:2007-02-21
Chicago, IL
·DIRECTV
·RCN CABLE
·T-Mobile VoIP
·AT&T U-Verse
·T-Mobile US
| reply to s4v8
Re: [CATV] Clear QAM channels slowly disappearing in Boston?
The FCC "In the Clear Rule" only requires that a provider leave either the SD or HD locals feeds in the clear so a QAM tuner can pull them in, not both. RCN is leaving the SD version of the local channels unencrypted so they are in compliance and they are under no obligation to notify residents that the HD versions of the local channels are going to be encrypted. It really sucks, but that the way it is.....IMO, RCN could have done a much better job with this! |
|
mrbigk
join:2004-01-22
Natick, MA
| Yeah and by February their will not be a SD version broadcast, so they should be allowed to downgrade what a broadcaster is sending? I somehow doubt the TV stations are going to be thrilled that a cable company could be allowed to offer only a downgraded version of their signal. I don't think this was thought out to well by RCN. I feel pretty confident that they will have to unencrypt the local HD stations in a few months anyway, why would they be so stupid to irritate its subscribers more than they have to. |
|
rcbrcb
Premium
join:2007-02-21
Chicago, IL
·DIRECTV
·RCN CABLE
·T-Mobile VoIP
·AT&T U-Verse
·T-Mobile US
| Thats not true mrbigk....After February the feeds will only be sent out in a digtal format (no more analog), but there will still be SD and HD versions being sent out in the digital format. Digital and HD are not the same thing...RCN has encrypted the HD local feeds to force those that want HD to rent HD equipment..... |
|
mrbigk
join:2004-01-22
Natick, MA
1 edit | The TV broadcasters are not going to broadcast a sd version of their feed over the air. The signal sent by the broadcasters will be HD. Whether or not the content is HD is another story. RCN will have to downconvert the signal if they want to offer a sd version. All I am saying is that should not be allowed to satisfy the must carry "in the clear" rule. If RCN wants to offer it to there customers, fine, but the HD signal is what is being broadcast, and thus should be the one in the clear. |
|
